- (1.)Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material. Leave granted.
(2.)The Appellant-plaintiff herein has filed a suit for specific performance basing his claim on an Agreement dated 2nd November, 1975. The plaint was amended and the prayer for Specific performance is set out thus:
"The Plaintiff therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree for specific performance in favour of the Plaintiff directing all or such of the Defendants as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit to join in and execute a sale deed with respect to suit schedule property falling which the Court may execute the same and deliver vacant possession to the Plaintiff by removing or evicting the Defendants and all persons claiming through them and their servants agents from the suit schedule property and remove any structure or constructions made by them or for such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may dean fit and proper and costs of the Suit (Amended as per orders in I.A. No. 259/91 dated 31.03.1992)".

A written statement was filed by Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on 10th February, 1982 in para 1 of which they raised the plea that the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit inasmuch as the property of which specific performance is sought is in Medak District.

(3.)On this preliminary issue, the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court vide its judgment dated 8th September, 1986 held that the relief of specific performance could be entirely obtained through personal obedience of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and since Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are residing in Hyderabad (over which the Hyderabad Court had jurisdiction) therefore there is territorial jurisdiction. Against this order, a Revision Petition was preferred, which was also dismissed on 26th September, 1986.