HARSHAD CHIMAN LAL MODI Vs. D L F UNIVERSAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on May 25, 1998 in Suit No. 1036 of 1994 and confirmed by the High Court of Delhi on November 1, 1999 in Civil Revision Petition No. 506 of 1998 holding that Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper court.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy raised in this appeal, admitted and/or undisputed facts may be noted. The appellant-original plaintiff entered into a plot buyer agreement (agreement for short) with DLF Universal Limited, respondent No. 1- original defendant No.1 - on August 14, 1985 for purchase of a residential plot admeasuring 264 sq. mtrs. in Residential Colony, DLF Qutub Complex, Gurgaon, Haryana. The agreement was in the Standard Form Contract of the first respondent. According to the appellant, the agreement was made in Delhi. The Head Office of respondent No.1 was situated in Delhi. Payment was to be made in Delhi. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 12,974/- (Rupees twelve thousand nine hundred seventy four only) towards the first instalment. It is the case of the appellant that payment was made by him in instalments as per the schedule to the agreement. In spite of the payment of amount, the first respondent unilaterally and illegally cancelled the agreement on April 4, 1988 under the excuse that the appellant had not paid dues towards construction of Modular House to respondent No.2 - original defendant No.2 - DLF Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. The appellant objected to the illegal action of the first respondent and sent a legal notice through an advocate calling upon the first respondent to carry out his part of the contract but respondent No. 1 replied that the agreement had been cancelled and nothing could be done in the matter. The appellant, in the circumstances, was constrained to file Suit No. 3095 of 1988 on the Original Side of the High Court of Delhi for declaration, specific performance of the agreement, for possession of the property and for permanent injunction.

(3.) In the prayer clause, the plaintiff stated :