Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33. We may point out that in Bhawna Seth (supra) another decision of a learned single judge of this court in the case of Rohit Kochhar v Vipul Infrastructure Developers Limited: 2005 (122) DLT 480 was referred to.

"28. I need not, therefore, deal with the various decisions of this Court and other High Courts relied upon by Counsel for the defendants for the reason that the decision of the Supreme Court in Adcon Electronic's case (supra) holds the field. The said decision has taken into account Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act. Decision categorically holds that a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell simplicitor even if it relates to immovable property is not a suit in which the relief claimed relates to title or to land. The suit is for enforcement of terms of contract. Decision categorically holds that it is at the option of the plaintiff to seek delivery of possession. Decision categorically holds that unless possession of immovable property is specifically prayed for, suit could be instituted within the local limits of the Court having jurisdiction where the defendant resides, carries on business or personally works for gain."

"16. We are in a legally fluid situation on the basic plea of a distinction between a suit for specific performance simplicitor and a suit where the relief for possession is also claimed. It is our view that the principles set out in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) would come into play where no relief of possession was claimed. The field of the factual matrix would be material to determine whether the principles of Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) would come into play or not. But then in Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd.'s case (supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had taken a different view without specifically discussing this aspect. The matter is little more complicated arising out of the pendency of the SLP against that Order of the Division Bench where interim orders are operating."

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."