Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment that discusses the law under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) relating to jurisdiction. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2- judge consisting of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice CK Thakker.  

Facts 

• The appellant in this case entered into a 'Plot Buyer Agreement' with DLF Universal Limited (Respondent No. 1) on 14th August, 1985, to purchase a residential plot in DLF Qutub Enclave Complex, Gurgaon, Haryana. 
• The appellant claimed that the agreement was executed in Delhi, the head office of Respondent No. 1 was in Delhi, and payments were made in Delhi. 
• The first Respondent unilaterally canceled the agreement on 4th April, 1988, citing non-payment of dues for construction to Respondent No. 2, DLF Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. 
• The appellant objected to the cancellation and sent a legal notice through an advocate, but Respondent No. 1 replied that the cancellation was final. 
• The appellant filed a suit in Delhi High Court for declaration, specific performance, possession, and permanent injunction. 
• On 9th December, 1988, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the appellant. 
• On 29th March, 1989, the defendants filed a common written statement, admitting the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. 
• Due to an increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court, the suit was transferred to the District Court, Delhi, on 12th July, 1993. 
• On 22^nd August, 1997, after eight years, the defendants sought an amendment to the written statement under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC, raising an objection to the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. 
• On 16th January, 1998, the amendment was allowed, and the issue of jurisdiction was included. On 25th May, 1998, the trial court ruled that Delhi Civil Court had no jurisdiction and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation in the proper court. 
• The appellant filed Civil Petition in the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed. 
• The appellant approached the Supreme Court directing parties to maintain the status quo. 
• On 17th April 2000, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the judgment, allowed the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, to proceed with the suit, but restricted him from delivering the final judgment until further orders. 
• The appeal has now come up for final hearing before the Supreme Court. 

Issues Involved  

• Would the Courts in Delhi have jurisdiction with regard to the suit of specific performance of contract in this case? 

Observation  

• The Court observed that Section 15 to Section 20 of CPC contains detailed provisions with respect to the jurisdiction of Courts. 
• Section 16 of CPC provides that actions against res or property should be brought in the forum where the property is situated. 
• The Court observed that proviso to Section 16 of CPC provides that the Court where the property is not situated can entertain the suit where relief sought can be obtained through the personal obedience of the defendant. 
• The proviso is based on the maxim “equity acts in personam” recognized by Courts in England. 
• The Proviso is thus an exception to the main provision and cannot be construed to enlarge the scope of the principal provision. 
• In the present facts the relief sought is for specific performance of agreement respecting immovable property. The Court observed that the Trial Court was right in holding that the suit was covered by Section 16 (d) of CPC and the proviso had no application. 
• The Court thereafter observed that Section 21 of CPC requires that the objection to jurisdiction must be taken by the party at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case where the issues are settled at or before settlement of such issues. 
• In the instant case, the suit was filed by the plaintiff in 1988 and written statement was filed by the defendants in 1989 wherein jurisdiction of the court was 'admitted 
• The Court concluded that the Courts below were wrong in allowing the amendment and in ignoring Section 21 of CPC. 
• With regards to objection as to jurisdiction the Court laid down the following: 
  • The jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several categories. The important categories are (i) Territorial or local jurisdiction; (ii) Pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii) Jurisdiction over the subject matter.   
  • So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues. 
  • The law is well settled on the point that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage 
  • Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter.  
  • An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is nullity.
• Applying the above law in the present facts the Court held that even though the plaintiff was right in submitting that the defendant had agreed to the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court the same will not result in conferring jurisdiction on the Delhi Court which it did not possess. 
• Thus, since the suit was for specific performance of agreement and possession of immovable property situated outside Delhi, the trial Court was right in holding that the Courts in Delhi would have no jurisdiction.  

Conclusion 

• This is a landmark judgment that discusses the jurisdiction pertaining to subject matter. 
• The Court observed that so far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues. 
• However, where the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction any order passed by the court would be a nullity.