Sanjeev Kumar ORDER
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
1. This revision petition assails the order of learned City Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'trial Court') dated 09.05.2016 passed in file No. 137/Civil titled "Prabha Kapoor and anr v. ADREE Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and anr whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the filing of the instant revision petition, are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration seeking to declare a communication dated 04th October, 2013 issued by petitioner No. 1 as nullity and inoperative in the eyes of law and also for declaring the respondents entitled to title, rights and interest in the under construction Flat No. A1-703 as per the Agreement dated 11th August, 2005 entered into between the parties. The respondents also claimed a decree of consequential relief of specific performance, mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction. In response to the summons issued by the trial Court, the petitioners appeared and moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint, primarily, on the ground that the suit property, which is a Flat, is situated in Gurgaon (Haryana) and, therefore, the Courts in Jammu including the trial Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass the decree prayed for. In support of their contentions, the petitioners relied upon Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that, since the Agreement between the parties was executed in Jammu, all the payments were made from Jammu and a communication dated 04.10.2013 sent by the petitioners too was received by the respondents in Jammu, therefore, a part of cause of action has accrued in Jammu which is good enough to confer jurisdiction on the Courts in Jammu including the trial Court. Reliance was placed on Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Learned trial Court appears to have considered the matter at some length and ultimately came to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant the relief prayed for.
4. The order of the trial Court dated 09.05.2016 impugned in this petition is assailed by the petitioners in this petition on the ground that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the distinction between Section 16 and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted that the pith and substance of the suit of the petitioners is for specific performance of contract pertaining to immovable property and that being so, the jurisdiction of the Court would be regulated by Section 16 and not Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure would operate only with respect to the suits other than those categorized in Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that looking to the nature of reliefs claimed by them and the fact that the Agreement sought to be enforced pertains to the immoveable property which is yet to come into existence, it is the place where cause of action has accrued, that would determine the jurisdiction of the Court. Referring to various documents appended with the plaint including the Agreement to Sell and the inter se communications between the respondents and the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a part of cause of action has accrued to the respondents within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court and, therefore, the application moved by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the partie........