Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2005 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (9) TMI 588 - SC - Indian LawsWhether Delhi Civil court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? Held that:- In the instant case, Delhi Court has no jurisdiction since the property is not situate within the jurisdiction of that court. The trial court was, therefore, right in passing an order returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. Hence, even though the plaintiff is right in submitting that the defendants had agreed to the jurisdiction of Delhi Court and in the original written statement, they had admitted that Delhi Court had jurisdiction and even after the amendment in the written statement, the paragraph relating to jurisdiction had remained as it was, i.e. Delhi Court had jurisdiction, it cannot take away the right of the defendants to challenge the jurisdiction of the court nor it can confer jurisdiction on Delhi Court, which it did not possess. Since the suit was for specific performance of agreement and possession of immovable property situated outside the jurisdiction of Delhi Court, the trial court was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the appellant drew out attention to Rule 32 of Order XXI of the Code which relates to execution. It, however, presupposes a decree passed in accordance with law. Only thereafter such decree can be executed in the manner laid down in Rules 32, 34 or 35 of Order XXI. Those provisions, therefore, have no relevance to the question raised in the present proceedings.Hence no case has been made out by the appellant against the order passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. The appeal, therefore dismissed.
|