Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"20. On consideration of the aforesaid judgments, I am of the view, that there can be no doubt that where in a suit for specific performance possession is also claimed as a relief, the competent Court to deal with the matter is the Court where the property is located in view of Section 16 of the said Code, the judgment in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi case (AIR 2005 SC 4461) (supra) clearly lays down the said proposition. However, what cannot be lost sight of is that the judgment is in the facts of the case where the relief of possession was specifically claimed. The question as to what would happen where the relief for possession is not claimed does not form subject-matter of a relief in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi case (supra).

22. M/s. Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) deals with the distinction in a case simpliciter for specific performance as against a case where possession is also prayed. This issue is not discussed in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi case (supra) nor has the judgment in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) been apparently cited in the proceedings in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi case (supra). Thus, both the judgments would operate in their respective areas. M/s.

(underlining added)

35. While on law the Division Bench in Anil Verman (supra) took a view different from the one in Vipul Infrastructure (supra), it chose not to refer the issue to a larger Bench or to await the judgment of the Supreme Court because it came to the conclusion that the suit, in the case before it, was not a suit for specific performance simpliciter without the relief of possession. It held as under :-

"17. We, however, do not consider it necessary to refer this issue to a larger Bench or await the judgment of the Supreme Court for the reasons set out hereinafter.

18. It is our view that the plaint as framed in the present case is not a suit filed simplicitor for specific performance without any relief of possession. The relief of possession has, in fact, been claimed albeit by not stating so in so many words. Thus, the appellant cannot avail of the benefit of the principles set out in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) to file the suit in Delhi by claiming that it is merely a suit for specific performance and the reliefs as claimed can be enforced by the personal obedience of the defendant."