Cyriac Joseph, J.— The revision petitioner was the plaintiff in S.No 191/1995 and the respondents were the defendants therein. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for Specific performance in respect of Plot No. B-11, Rampuri Colony, Ghaziabad. According to the plaintiff the defendants had agreed to transfer the said plot to the plaintiff and had delivered physical possession of the said plot to the plaintiff but the defendants neglected to execute the sale deed in respect of the said plot in favour of the plaintiff. The prayer in the suit was for directing the defendants to execute and get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid plot. The defendants are limited companies having their registered office at New Delhi. They are carrying on their business in Delhi.
2. On the basis of the pleadings and after hearing the parties issues were framed the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi in the suit. One of the issues was whether the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The said issue was treated as preliminary issue.
3. Defendant No. 1 contended that the suit was in respect of the property B-11, Rampuri Colony, Ghaziabad, (U.P) and, therefore the Civil Judge, Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff contended that defendants 1 and 2 had their registered office in Delhi and were carrying on their business in Delhi and that the prayer in the suit was only for directing them to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and hence the Civil Judge, Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Civil Judge held that he had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and accordingly dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. Against the order of the learned Civil Judge the plaintiff filed appeal RCA 631/1996 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge. The learned Senior Civil Judge also held that the Civil Court in Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, the learned Senior Civil Judge observed that the suit should not have been dismissed and that the plaint should have been returned under Order VII, Rule 10 C.P.C The case was remanded to the trial court for proceeding under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C Aggrieved by the above mentioned orders passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Senior Civil Judge the petitioner filed this revision petition. While issuing notice to the respondents this Court had passed an interim order, on 7.4.1997 that the impugned order should not be given effect to. The interim order has been continuing in force.
4. Having considered the materials placed on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties I find that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court erred in holding that the Civil Court in Delhi did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Both the Courts relied on the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But both the Courts failed to correctly understand the proviso to Section 16 of the C.P.C and to apply the said proviso to the facts of this case. For convenience section 16 of the cpc is extracted below:—
16: 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 a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property.
(d) for the determination of any 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 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.
Explanation: In this section “property” means property in India.
5. As per the proviso to Section 16 of the C.P.C, a suit to obtain relief respecting immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may 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, provided that the relief sought can be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of the defendant. In the present case defendants 1 and 2 admittedly have their registered office in Delhi and are carrying on business in Delhi. The relief sought in the suit is only for directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and to get the sale deed registered. The said relief of executing the sale deed and getting the sale deed registered can be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of the defendants who are carrying on business within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge, Delhi. Therefore, the Court of the Civil Judge, Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
6. The learned Civil Judge has observed that the relief sought by the plaintiff is not only for execution of the sale deed but also for registration of the sale deed and that the registration of the sale deed cannot be obtained by the personal obedience of the defendants since registration of the sale deed is not the job of the defendants. This is not a correct view. It is common knowledge that the registration of a sale deed is the function of the Registrar and not the job of the person executing the sale deed. The job of the person executing the sale deed is to present the sale deed to the Registrar for registration and to comply with the formalities required. When that is done registration will naturally follow. That is why the plaintiff sought the relief of directing the defendants to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff and not to register the sale deed. The Civil Court in Delhi can make the defendants obey its direction to present the sale deed to the Registrar for registration and to comply with the necessary formalities. hence, the learned Civil Judge was not right in assuming that the relief of getting the sale deed registered cannot be obtained by the personal obedience of the defendants.
7. The learned Senior Civil Judge wrongly concluded that the proviso to Section 16 of the C.P.C did not apply to the present case. The only reason stated for arriving at the said conclusion is that the sale deed to be executed is in respect of the immovable property which is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. Obviously, the learned Senior Civil Judge did not correctly understand the scope of the proviso to Section 16 C.P.C which enables a person to file a suit 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, notwithstanding the fact that the immovable property in respect of which relief is sought is situate outside the jurisdiction of the said Court.
8. In the light of the discussion above, the impugned orders are set aside and the preliminary issue regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court in Delhi is decided in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The trial court records shall be returned forthwith.
9. The Revision Petition is allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.