S.S. Satheesachandran, J.@mdashThe Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs:
i. to call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P3 and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 44 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, North Parur. The above suit is one for specific performance of an agreement of sale, and the respondent is the plaintiff. Petitioner/defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit on the ground that as per the terms of the agreement between the parties, it has been agreed that only the courts in Ernakulam have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes between them. An interlocutory application moved by the petitioner canvassing the question of jurisdiction raising contentions as above, after hearing both sides, was turned down by the learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P3 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the Writ Petition by the petitioner/defendant invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P3 order challenged in the Writ Petition, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and hence, it is dispensed with. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant assailed Ext.P3 order passed by the court below contending that when the parties have specifically agreed to resolve their disputes arising out of the agreement conferring jurisdiction in the courts at Ernakulam, the suit could not have been entertained in any other court. Inviting my attention to paragraph 7 of the Ext.P3 order, it is contended that the view expressed by the court below that the court at North Parur is also coming within Ernakulam, and so much so, the suit presented before the court at North Parur is also maintainable, has no basis or merit as the parties have specifically agreed in their agreement, which of the courts in Ernakulam shall have jurisdiction to entertain suits in the event of disputes between the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd., , Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal and Another, , Tatanagar Transport Corporation v. Bharat Trading Agency 1974 KLT 105 and Jatinder Nath v. Chopra Land Developers (P) Ltd. and Anr. (2007) 11 SCC 453 to contend that where there are more than one courts having jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it is open to the parties to provide for and agree which of the two courts have jurisdiction, and when that be so, the court which has been agreed upon by the parties alone has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Among the above decisions, only one of them, that is, Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal and Another, deal with the question of jurisdiction in respect of a suit involving immovable property. All the other decisions referred to by the counsel, it is seen, related to agreement between the parties, not involving the determination of any right or interest in immovable property. Section 16(d) of the CPC specifically mandates that in relation to the determination of any right or interest to the immovable property, the suit should be instituted where the subject matter is situate. The Apex Court in the decision referred to by the counsel Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal and Another, has stated in unambiguous terras that a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of an immovable property seeking relief of execution of sale deed and delivery of possession has to be filed within the territorial jurisdiction where the property is situate, and no court other than that has any power to deal with and decide right or interest in such property, and such jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement. The Apex Court, dilating on that question has observed thus: "The case on hand relate to specific performance of a contract and possession of an immovable property. Section 16 of the C.P.C. deals with such case and jurisdiction of the competent court where such suit can be instituted. Under the said provision, a suit can be instituted where the property is situated. No court other than the court where the property is situated can entertain such suit. Hence, even if there is an agreement between the parties to the contract, it has no effect and cannot be enforced." When that be the law settled by the Apex Court in respect of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale involving an immovable property, it is futile to contend that the parties have agreed to provide jurisdiction on a court where the property covered by the contract is not situated, and that court, in view of the specific mandate u/s 16(d) of the C.P.C, cannot have any jurisdiction even if the parties agreed to resolve disputes over the agreement of sale in such a court. Though I do not approve of the observations and views made by the learned Sub Judge in Ext.P3 order that Sub court, North Parur, as being part of Ernakulam, can also be considered as a competent court under the agreement entered by the parties, in the given facts of the case and on the question of law applicable, I find the conclusion formed by the court below that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit is unassailable. In fact, the court below alone, in the territorial jurisdiction of which the immovable property covered by the agreement of sale is situate, the specific performance of which was sought for in the suit, has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. There is no merit in the Writ Petition, and it is dismissed.
