# Air Force Naval Housing Board through Director General & Anr. Revisionists v. Chandra Shekhar Vats - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1888 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-06 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/air-force-naval-housing-board-through-director-general-anr-revisionists-v-43875 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote jurisdiction of Delhi Courts - Effect - Held, jurisdiction of Civil Court is governed by Sections 15 to 20 CPC - Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a Court which otherwise lacks jurisdiction - Exclusive jurisdiction clause is enforceable only where more than one Court has jurisdiction - In present case, no part of cause of action shown to have arisen in Delhi - Court at Gautam Budh Nagar had territorial jurisdiction - Order rejecting application for rejection of plaint upheld - Revision dismissed. Case Law discussed: A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163 Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 740 Result: Civil Revision dismissed. ## Text 1888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 49. In view of the above, the appeal of appellant Ganga Ram is allowed while the appeal of Rakesh is partly allowed. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this judgement along-with the lower court record to the court concerned at an early date for its compliance and necessary action. Let a copy of this judgement be kept on record of Criminal Appeal No.320 of 1995. ---------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Civil Revision No.- 504 Of 2007 Air Force Naval Housing Board through Director General & Anr. ...Revisionists Versus Chandra Shekhar Vats ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Revisionists: Sri Vatsal Srivastava Counsel for the Opposite Party: Vatsal Srivastava Headnote: Para 8, 12 & 13 - Territorial jurisdiction - Ouster clause - Validity - Property situated in Gautam Budh Nagar - Suit for injunction relating to allotment of flat - Clause in master brochure providing exclusive jurisdiction of Delhi Courts - Effect - Held, jurisdiction of Civil Court is governed by Sections 15 to 20 CPC - Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a Court which otherwise lacks jurisdiction - Exclusive jurisdiction clause is enforceable only where more than one Court has jurisdiction - In present case, no part of cause of action shown to have arisen in Delhi - Court at Gautam Budh Nagar had territorial jurisdiction - Order rejecting application for rejection of plaint upheld - Revision dismissed. Case Law discussed: A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163 Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 740 Result: Civil Revision dismissed. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. This revision under Section 115 CPC has arisen from order dated 15.09.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar in Original Suit No. 599 of 2005, deciding 5 All. Air Force Naval Housing Board through Director General & Anr. Vs Chandra Shekhar Vats 1889 issue no.3, relating to territorial jurisdiction and answering the same in negative and also rejecting application no. 22-C filed by the defendant revisionist, praying for rejection of plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of Court below. 2. Plaintiff respondent instituted Original Suit No. 599 of 2005 seeking permanent injunction restraining defendant revisionist from allotting and handing over possession of the disputed flat to any other person and also to restore allotment in favour of plaintiff respondent along with his possession. Defendant revisionist filed an application 22C under Section 9 read with Section 151 CPC, raising preliminary objection in view of para 39(c) of master brochure as well as para 25 of allotment letter dated 09.07.2003 stating that jurisdiction lies only with Civil Court at Delhi or Delhi High Court, as the case may be. It is this application which has been rejected by Court below. Hence this revision. 3. It is contended that the condition in the master brochure as well as allotment letter constitutes consent of allottee, providing that in respect of dispute, if any, between parties which needs to be resolved through Court, only the Court at Delhi would have jurisdiction, was binding upon plaintiff-respondent and Court below has erred in law in taking otherwise view. 4. Para 39 of master brochure reads as under: "The following norms will be observed in dealing with Court Cases, if any filed against the AFNHB:- (a) The Registrants or allottee may take recourse to Court only after he or she has exhausted all avenues of redressal. (b) The Board being a registered Society shall sue and be sued in the name of Director General only. No other Officer of the Board or any Member of the Board of Management shall be a party to any legal proceedings. (c) All suits and legal proceedings of any kind against the Board shall be instituted in the appropriate court(s) in Delhi or New Delhi notwithstanding the location of the property, which may be subject matter of the dispute. (d) No suits or legal proceedings of any kind shall be instituted against the Board unless a notice in writing has been delivered to the Board stipulating the nature of claim, cause of action, relief sought, name, registration number and address of the person, and a period of two months has expired thereafter." 5. Para 25 of allotment letter (Annexure 5 to writ petition) reads as under: 1890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES In the event of any dispute arising with regard to the terms & conditions of allotment or possession of dwelling unit, the same shall be subject to the jurisdiction of District Court at Delhi or t5he High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 6. Plaintiff respondent has filed suit stating that he is an Ex-Seargent of Indian Air Force and submitted an application dated 02.06.2003 for allotment of a flat. He also deposited initial payment of Rs. 50,500/- on 05.06.2003 with defendant revisionist. Vide allotment letter dated 09.07.2003, Flat No. Type A Multistoried, area 1250 Sq. ft was allotted on a total price of Rs. 15.95 Lacs. Plaintiff-respondent retired from active service of Indian Air Force on 30.10.1989. Defendants never made any demand for payment of installments or otherwise construction price of flat allotted to him and cancelled allotment by letter dated 29.04.2005. Plaintiff-respondent represented vide letter dated 12.05.2005 and also remitted three demand drafts of Rs. 1,35,000/- with request to revoke cancellation but nothing has happened. Hence a suit for mandatory injunction, directing defendant-revisionist to maintain allotment of disputed flat to Plaintiffrespondent and to allot the same to anybody else. 7. So far as para 25 of allotment letter is concerned, we find that it applies to a dispute relating to terms and conditions of allotment or possession of dwelling unit but nowhere allotment itself has been cancelled. However para 39 of master brochure is substantially wide and covers every situation wherever a suit or legal proceedings is/are brought against defendant-revisionist. Jurisdiction of a Civil Court is governed by Sections 15 to 20 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"). Section 15 CPC stats that every suit shall be instituted in Court of lest grade competent to try it. Section 16 provides that suit for recovery of immovable property with or without rent or partition of immovable property, foreclosure, sale or redemption, if any, in the case of mortgage or charge upon immovable property, determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property, compensation for wrong to immovable property, recovery of movable property actually under distrait or attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. Section 17 provides that a suit to obtain relief respecting to, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts, may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate. Section 18 deals with the place where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain. Section 19 CPC apparently is not applicable to dispute in the case in hand. Section 20 CPC deals with other suits not governed by earlier provisions. 8. In the present case, property is situated in District Gautam Budh Nagar in State of U.P. Therefore, the Court at Gautam Budh Nagar has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. Master brochure, at best, can be said to be an offer made by defendant-revisionist but it cannot be said that by submitting application for allotment of a flat, whatever is stated in the master brochure stands accepted by plaintiff-respondent and became a part of the contract. In fact, application submitted by plaintiff-respondent constitutes a counter offer and when after accepting the said application the devfendant-revisionist issued allotment letter, containing several terms and conditions, only that can be said to constitute a contract between the parties. As already said, para 25 of allotment letter is not applicable to nature of suit instituted in the present matter. Moreover, a contract between 5 All. Air Force Naval Housing Board through Director General & Anr. Vs Chandra Shekhar Vats 1891 parties that a Court at a particular place only shall have jurisdiction having the effect of ousting jurisdiction of other courts, has not been held to be a valid contract in the light of Section 28 of Indian Contact Act 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1872"). 9. In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & another vs A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163, the Court said that such a contract may be held valid only when jurisdiction to entertain the cause of action falls within authority of more than one courts and at different places and, in such a case, if the parties agree that the Court at one place only, shall have jurisdiction, that contract will be enforceable, for the reason, that it is not a case, where, the parties have agreed for filing a suit at a place which has no jurisdiction whatsoever, but have agreed to ascertain that only one Court out of several who have jurisdiction, shall be competent to entertain the matter. Such a contract would not be bad in law for the reason that parties have not conferred jurisdiction, which otherwise did not have jurisdiction but when jurisdiction lies at different places, the parties have chosen to confine institution of a suit only at one place. The Court in this regard said as under: Under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is opposed to public policy. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. Hence there can be no doubt that an agreement to oust absolutely the jurisdiction of the Court will be unlawful and void being against the public policy. Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. If therefore it is found in this case that Clause 11 has absolutely ousted the jurisdiction of the Court it would be against public policy. However, such will be the result only if it can be shown that the jurisdiction to which the parties have agreed to submit had nothing to do with the contract. If on the other hand it is found that the jurisdiction agreed would also be a proper jurisdiction in the matter of the contract it could not be said that it ousted the jurisdiction of the Court. This leads to the question in the facts of this case as to whether Kaira would be proper jurisdiction in the matter of this contract. It would also be relevant to examine if some other courts than that of Kaira would also have had jurisdiction in the absence of Clause 11 and whether that would amount to ouster of jurisdiction of those courts and would thereby affect the validity of the clause. 10. To the similar effect is law laid down in an earlier decision of Supreme Court in Hakam Singh vs M/S. Gammon (India) Ltd 1971 AIR 740 wherein the Court held that it was not open to the parties to agree to confer by their agreement jurisdiction on a Court which it did not otherwise possess under the Code of Civil Procedure. However, where two courts or more have jurisdiction under CPC to try a suit or proceedings and agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such courts, would not be contrary to public policy. Such an agreement would not contravene Section 28 of Act 1872. 11. In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. (supra) after considering several authorities on the subject, the Court summarized as under: "It was held that it was not open to the parties to agreement to confer by their agreement jurisdiction on a Court which did not possess under the Code. But where two Courts or 1892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES more have under the CPC jurisdiction to try the suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts was not contrary to public policy and such an agreement did not contravene Section 28 of the Contract Act. Though this case arose out of an arbitration agreement there is no reason why the same rule should not apply to other agreements in so far as jurisdiction is concerned. Without referring to this decision a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Nannak Chand Vs. T.T. Elect. Suypply Co., A.I.R. 1975 Madras 103 observed that competency of a Court to try an action goes to the root of the matter and when such competency is not found, it has no jurisdiction at all to try the case. But objection based on jurisdiction is a matter which parties could waive and it is in this sense if such jurisdiction is exercised by Courts it does not go to the core of it so as to make the resultant judgment a nullity." 12. In the present case, we asked from learned counsel for revisionist as to whether it can be said that cause of action, giving rise to suit in question is said to have arisen within jurisdiction of Courts at Delhi, he could not address the Court to show as to how such a cause of action can be said to have arisen at Delhi. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that suit has rightly been instituted in Court at Gautam Budh Nagar. The Court below has neither committed any patent illegality nor material irregularity nor jurisdictional error in passing impugned order so as to warrant interference in this revision. 13. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 14. Costs made easy. ---------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J. Criminal Revision No.- 1217 Of 2016 Raj Kumar Agrawal Alias Raju Garg ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Ashok Pal Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., N.I. Jafri This revision has been preferred against the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar in ST No. 634 of 2014 (State Vs. Raj