J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (Code for short hereinafter) the appellant in this First Appeal has questioned the legality and validity of the decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Narol in Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 1974. ( 2 ) A few material facts giving rise to the present appeal needs narration at the outset. The present appellant is the original defendant and the present respondent is the original plaintiff and the parties are hereinafter addressed to as the plaintiff and the the defendant for the sake of convenience and brevity. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff inter alia contended that he is the owner of the open land bearing Survey No. 180/1 situated at village Nikol and the defendant entered into an agreement to purchases that land which is hereinafter referred to as the suit land at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. yd. The defendant paid Rs. 8240 to the plaintiff by way of earnest money and the plaintiff had handed over the possession of the suit land to the defendant. It was agreed upon between the parties that the defendant will obtain a sale deed from the plaintiff within a period of 5 years on payment of remaining amount of consideration. According to one of the terms of the agreement the defendant had to pay Rs. 450 per month as interest on the unpaid sale price. It was also agreed that if any three installments of such interest amount would remain unpaid the plaintiff would recover the dues with compound interest at the rate of 12%. As per the terms of the agreement the plaintiff was entitled to forfeit the earnest money and also to claim interest. The defendant had paid interest upto 15. 8. 1971. However thereafter 12 installments had become due in respect of the interest amount for the period between 16. 8. 1971 to 15. 8. 1971. In short 12 installments of interest were not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as agreed. Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the suit land and for the recovery of Rs. 6476 alongwith running interest and the cost. ( 4 ) THE defendant appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement at Ex. 8. 1971. In short 12 installments of interest were not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as agreed. Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the suit land and for the recovery of Rs. 6476 alongwith running interest and the cost. ( 4 ) THE defendant appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement at Ex. 17 He inter alia contended that there was no any default or breach on his part. He also raised the dispute with regard to the area of the suit land and also dispute of territorial jurisdiction. It was the contention of the defendant that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract provided that the actual measurements of the land had been taken and the price had been fixed accordingly ( 5 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances and pleadings of the parties issues came to be settled at Ex. 33. On appreciation of the evidence the learned trial Judge was pleased to decree the suit on 16 8 1977 against the defendant. Hence this First Appeal at the instance of the original defendant. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. K. G Sukhwani for the appellant-original defendant has first seriously contended that the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff is entitled to forfeit the amount of earnest money of Rs. 8240 is erroneous and illegal. Prima facie this contention appears to be subtle but not sustainable in view of the peculiar facts of the case on hand. Learned trial court Judge has held that the amount of Rs. 8240 paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as earnest money is liable to be forfeited. This finding is seriously criticised by he learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Maula Bux vs. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1955 . The agreement of the sale of the suit land is produced at Ex 69. It is dated 16. 1. 1968. Having examined the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement at Ex. 69 and the facts and circumstances of the present case and also the case law relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant the aforesaid first contention is without any substance. The said decision is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 1. 1968. Having examined the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement at Ex. 69 and the facts and circumstances of the present case and also the case law relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant the aforesaid first contention is without any substance. The said decision is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. It cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 8240 paid by the defendant to the plaintiff by way of earnest money is in any way a penalty Factually the amount stipulated as earnest money is 15% of the total sale price. It cannot he held to be a penalty in the facts of the present case as the amount of Rs. 8240 is not excessive or unconsionable amount in comparison with the loss that could have been caused by the breach. The plaintiff was entitled to reasonable amount of compensation on account of breach of contract committed by the defendant in view of the provisions of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act. It would be therefore necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 74 of the Contract Act which reads as under:" 74 Compensation for breach of contract whore penalty stipulated for- When a contract has been broken if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach or in the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty the party complaining of the breach is entitled whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or as the case may be the penalty stipulated for"it would be also interesting to note at this juncture that the defendant has nowhere even remotely whispered in the written statement that the amount of earnest money of Rs. 8240 was in any way unreasonable and therefore it amounted to penalty No evidence is there on record to show that the said amount is unreasonable in the factual scenario of the present case. Consequently the said decision of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant is not applicable in the present case Hence the first contention is required to be rejected. Consequently the said decision of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant is not applicable in the present case Hence the first contention is required to be rejected. ( 7 ) THE second contention is with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. It is true that the dispute in this behalf is raised in the written statement and the issue was also framed. in the facts of present case the issue is rightly decided against the original defenant. The agreement at Ex. 69 in respect of the suit land took place within the territorial jurisdiction of City Civil and Sessions Court Ahmedabad. But that fact itself would not preclude the Civil Court of Ahmedabad Rural to entertain the dispute as the subject matter of the dispute which is an open land is situated admittedly in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which has decided it. In this connection it would be proper to make reference to Section 16 of the Code. Section 16 of the Code reads as under:"16 Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate. Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law suits (a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits (b) for the partition of immovable property (c) for foreclosure sale or redemption in the case of the mortgage of or charge upon immovable property (d) for the determination of an other right to or interest in immovable property (e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property (f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment. shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate: provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting or compensation for wrong to immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience be instituted either in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain"thus it can be very well seen that the suit could be instituted in a Court in whose territorial jurisdiction the subject matter of the controversy or the property is situated. Therefore the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected this contention This Court also finds no substance in the second submission. Not only that Section 21 of the Code makes the provision to objection to jurisdiction in the appellate or revisional court. It would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 21 of the Code at this juncture which reads as under:"21 Objections to jurisdiction. (1) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all eases where issues are settled at or before such settlement and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. (2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all eases where issues are settled at or before such settlement and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. (3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice". It will be crystal clear from the aforesaid provisions of Section 21 of the Code that objection as to the place of suing is not to be allowed unless such a contention is taken in the Court in the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. It is true that the objection was raised at the earliest point of time but no consequent failure of justice has been pointed out or spelt out. Therefore alternatively also the submission pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Court is totally without any substance. Hence it is rejected. ( 8 ) IT leads to the consideration of the third contention raised on behalf of the appellant-defendant In that it is contended that the clause of levying of compound interest in the agreement at Ex. Therefore alternatively also the submission pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Court is totally without any substance. Hence it is rejected. ( 8 ) IT leads to the consideration of the third contention raised on behalf of the appellant-defendant In that it is contended that the clause of levying of compound interest in the agreement at Ex. 69 is in a nature of penalty and therefore it cannot be enforced This contention is seriously examined by the Trial Court and the trial court has rightly reached to the conclusion that in the facts of the case such a contention is without any substance. It is a settled proposition of law that compound interest can be charged in case of breach of contact and it does not amount to penalty. Therefore the third submission is also required to be rejected. The last contention is in relation to the area of the suit land. The contention of the defendant from the inception is that the suit land is not admeasuring 10640 sq. yds. According to the contention of the defendant the suit land admeasures only 9000 sq. yds. This submission is also not acceptable in view of the clear evidence on record and particularly the documentary evidence produced at Ex. 81 which is a map prepared by the authorised Surveyor Mr. J A Barot. It is proved on record without any shadow or doubt that the dimensions of the suit land are admeasuring 10640 sq. yds. Therefore this submission is also meritless and requires to be rejected no other contention is raised. In view of the facts and circumstances this Court is of the opinion that the present appeal is without any substance and is required to be dismissed In the result the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed. .