Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 298 (BOM)

Chandulal P. Patel v. Jaywant H. Thakur

2009-03-04

ROSHAN DALVI

body2009
Judgment : 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The Suit is filed for specific performance of a Deed of Assignment of development rights dated 1st February 2003 and in the alternative for receipt of a certain sum claimed by the Plaintiff as damages. The Suit is also for declaration that another agreement for development dated 31st December 2007 is void. 2. It is conceded by all the Advocates that the Suit for specific performance is not a Suit for land under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. That has been held in the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hatimbhai Hassanally Vs. Framroz Eduljee Dinshaw, (AIR 1927 Bombay 278) and ultimately upheld even by the Supreme Court in the case of Adcon Electronic s Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat and another ( AIR 2001 S.C. 3712 ). This is therefore not a suit for land. 3. The Deed of Assignment of development rights dated 1st February 2003 for specific performance of which the Suit has been essentially filed was executed in Mumbai. The consideration was paid in Mumbai. Therefore, the entire cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. This Court would have territorial jurisdiction to try the Suit even without grant of leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. 4. It is now contended by the Defendants that because the interim reliefs prayed for in the Suit is inter alia for the grant of an injunction restraining the Defendants from disposing of the Suit property which is in Thane or from entering upon or dispossessing the Plaintiffs therefrom, the Suit would be a Suit for land and hence, relief cannot be granted since the Defendants also reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In the alternative it is argued that the interim reliefs under prayers (e) and (f) should stand deleted so that the Court could assume territorial jurisdiction. 5. The determination of the Suit, based upon the averment s in the plaint, is for the final reliefs in the Suit. The interim reliefs may be asked for in the plaint or otherwise. There is no limit to the extent of interim reliefs which can be prayed for in any Suit. 5. The determination of the Suit, based upon the averment s in the plaint, is for the final reliefs in the Suit. The interim reliefs may be asked for in the plaint or otherwise. There is no limit to the extent of interim reliefs which can be prayed for in any Suit. Any number of interim applications can be taken out even if no such prayer for grant of such relief pending the Suit is made. The determination of the nature of the Suit is never dependent upon the interim reliefs prayed for. 6. The very essence of the interim reliefs is for protection of the properties in the suit and the rights of the parties therein. 7. The grant of an injunction in respect of the Suit property is not a relief against the property, but for the protection of that property pending the Suit. Hence, the contention that the Suit is also for injunction in respect of the Suit property is misconceived. 8. It may be mentioned that leave was not even required to be applied for in the present Suit. The requirement of the grant of territorial jurisdiction of the Court is upon the cause of action (full or part or the residence of the Defendants) the cause of action in a Suit for specific performance is essentially where the agreement or contract, which is sought to be specifically performed, is entered into or part performed. Once that is seen, the Court where the agreement was entered into or part performed would be the only Court having territorial jurisdiction. 9. In this case thePlaintiffs applied for leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent by way of abundant caution. Leave came to be granted. The territorial jurisdiction of the Court has remained unchanged. The leave cannot be revoked. 10. The Chamber Summons is dismissed. No order as to costs.