***

HARSH BUNGER J. –

Petitioner (Imperia Structures Limited) has filed the present civil revision petition for setting aside the order dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC filed by petitioner has been dismissed.

1.1 For the sake of convenience, the parties are being addressed herein, as per their status in original suit.

2. Briefly, the respondent No.1-plaintiff (Satwant Singh Brar) filed a suit for recovery, wherein the present petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.1. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff on the plea that the present petitioner-defendant No.1 through its associates/representatives approached him for investment in the project namely Imperia H2O (in short “the project”) being developed by the present petitioner-defendant No.1.

2.1 It was averred that on the basis of various representations and warranties on the part of the present petitioner-defendant No.1 and its associates, the plaintiff agreed to invest in the aforesaid project, who had assured plaintiffs of returns/appreciation etc.

2.2 It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that back to back agreements were executed in the form of builder-buyer agreement and buy back agreement between the plaintiff and defendants to ensure that plaintiff is assured of the return of his investment along with appreciation. The plaintiff is stated to have invested huge amount of money towards sale consideration along with service tax, accordingly a builder-buyer agreement dated 06.07.2016 and 29.09.2016 was entered into between the parties, wherein an IT space measuring 1,000 sq. ft. (super area) situated at Imperia H2O, 44-45, Knowledge Park-V, Greater Noida, U.P, was allotted to the plaintiff and entire sale consideration amount was taken from him. It is averred by plaintiff that two buy back agreements were also entered between the parties; according to which the defendants were liable to pay back a sum of Rs.83,35,000/- to the plaintiff.

2.3 Plaintiffs claims that defendants failed to comply with the aforesaid buy back agreements. It is specifically stated by plaintiff that in compliance of the buy-back agreements, in the year 2018, the following cheques were given by the defendants:

(i) Cheque No. 004841, dated June 16, 2018, in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-drawn by ICICI Bank,

(ii) Cheque No. 002786, dated July 24, 2018, in the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- drawn by ICICI Bank,

(iii) Cheque No. 006231, dated June 16, 2018, in the sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- drawn by ICICI Bank,

(iv) Cheque No. 006232, dated July 16, 2018, in the sum of Rs 11,00,000/- drawn by ICICI Bank.

(v) Cheque No. 000029, dated September 16, 2018, in the sum of Rs 1,35,000/- drawn by ICICI Bank.

2.4 The aforesaid cheques are stated to have been dishonoured. It is the case of the plaintiff that thereafter there were three discussions/meetings amongst the parties and the defendants sent an email dated 29.09.2018 to the plaintiff extending the time of compliance of buy back agreement from August 2018 to September 2018. Plaintiff averred that the defendants were postponing and prolonging the issue by making false assurances and promises that the funds were being arranged and the cheques would be issued thereafter. Plaintiff further averred that since no confirmation was coming forward, accordingly, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 03.12.2018 to the defendants however, of no avail. Accordingly, the suit for recovery has been filed with the following prayer:-

“Prayer:-

In view of the aforesaid circumstances it is most humbly prayed that a decree for recovery of Rs.83,35,000/- along with Stamp duty of Rs 257,150/-, pleaders fees 2,50,000/- with interest from july 2018 till realization with cost & expenses, may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendants to refund the above said amount along with cost and interest to the plaintiff. The defendants shall be further directed to pay 18% interest P.A. on the total amount till its realization from the date of its deposit.”

3. It appears that the present petitioner-defendant No.1 appeared in the suit and filed an application (Annexure P-8) under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, seeking return of the plaint to the respondent No.1/plaintiff on the following grounds:-

“5. That in the captioned suit, the Plaintiff has sought recovery of an amount of Rs. 83,35,000/-on basis of Memorandum of Understanding/Buy Back Agreements/Agreement to Sell dated 06.07.2016 and 29.09.2016 with respect to IT space admeasuring 1000 sq.ft. situated at Imperia H2O, 44-45 Knowledge Park-V, Greater Noida, U.P. The said Agreements were duly executed between the parties at New Delhi and in terms of Clause (c) of the said Memorandum of Understanding there is exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Delhi has been mutually agreed upon by both Plaintiff and the Defendant and as such this Hon'ble Court does not have the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. That moreover, no cause of action or part of cause of action has ever risen the registered office of the Defendant is located in New Delhi. Further, the property in question is located in Noida, U.P. Thus, on this ground alone the present suit merits dismissal at the threshold.

7. That upon bare perusal of the plaint and the Agreements entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant it is aptly evident that the present suit has been filed without any jurisdiction. The Plaintiff has feigned jurisdiction when none exists and thus the plaint is liable to be returned.”

3.1 The respondent No.1/plaintiff contested the aforesaid application (Annexure P-8) submitted on behalf of the petitioner, by filing his reply (Annexure P-9).

4. The learned Trial Court upon consideration of the matter, dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC (Annexure P-8) filed by the present petitioner vide order dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), the relevant extract thereof reads as under:-

“7. Now, the execution of Buy Back Agreements and Memorandum of Understanding on 29.09.2016 and 06.07.2016 is not in dispute. By virtue of Memorandum of Understanding, the plaintiff had invested money in the company of defendant no. 1 on two occasions i.e. 29.09.2016 and 06.07.2016. Similarly, Buy Back Agreements dated 29.09.2016 and 06.07.2016 were also entered between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 whereby the company i.e. defendant no. 1 agreed to pay the amounts to the plaintiff in view Buy Back Agreements and also issued five cheques as detailed in para no. 9 of the plaint i.e. (a) Cheque No. 004841 dated June, 16^th 2018, in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn by ICICI Bank, (b) Cheque No. 002786 dated July, 24th 2018, in the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- drawn by ICICI Bank, (c) Cheque No. 006231 dated June, 16th 2018, in the sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- drawn by ICICI Bank, (d) Cheque No. 006232 dated July, 16th 2018, in the sum of Rs. 11,00,000/-drawn by ICICI Bank, (e) Cheque No. 000029 dated September, 16th 2018, in the sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- drawn by ICICI Bank, which were admittedly dishonored upon presentation at Gurugram. Thus, it is evident that the money which was to be paid by defendant no. 1 in form of cheques was not encashed and the cheques were dishonored in the jurisdiction of Gurugram which shows that the cause of action for claiming the recovery in part arose at Gurugram after the cheques were dishonored and merely the execution of the agreement at New Delhi would not take-away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court situated at Gurugram rather the dishonor of cheques gives cause of action to the plaintiff to file his suit before the Civil Court at Gurugram in order to claim recovery of his amount. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has cause of action in his favour as the money has not yet been paid to the plaintiff either in view of the Buy Back Agreements or after the dishonor of cheques and the defendants cannot claim advantage of the fact that the property is situated in Noida or that the agreements were entered at New Delhi. Once, defendant no. 1 agreed to Buy Back the property, then he was bound to return the money and issuance of cheques and dishonor of the same in the jurisdiction of Court situated at Gurugram gives cause of action to the plaintiff to file the present suit and thus, the jurisdiction of Civil Court at Gurugram cannot be said to be barred.

8. Apart from that, the defences or objections raised by the defendants can only be adjudicated at the trial stage after proper evidence is led by both sides. Furthermore, this Court is not required to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction as though it were a factual issue requiring adjudication on merits. The only requirement is to assess, from the face of the plaint and accompanying documents, whether the Court prima facie has jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is evident that in determining whether a Court has territorial jurisdiction, it is not necessary that the entire cause of action must have arisen within its jurisdiction. Even if a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial limits of the Court, it is sufficient to confer jurisdiction, as per Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Where the subject matter involves infringement of a right, both the place where the right is created and the place where it is infringed are relevant. In cases arising out of breach of contract, the place where the contract was entered into, the place where it was to be performed, and the place where the breach occurred, all constitute parts of the cause of action. Equally important is the principle that where the relief sought is a money decree, the place where the payment is to be made, which is part of the performance of the contractual obligation, is also deemed to be a place where the cause of action arises. A Court having jurisdiction over such a place is thus competent to try the suit.

9. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances and the reasons mentioned herein-above the instant application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC is hereby dismissed.”

5. In the aforementioned circumstances, present civil revision petition has been filed before this Court, for seeking relief(s) as noticed hereinabove.

6. The only ground raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application Order 7 Rule 10 CPC without considering clause 2 of the buyback agreement dated 06.07.2016 (Annexure P-3), the relevant extract whereof reads as under:

“2.Consideration

a. Consideration payable by the developer to the Allottee for buying back allottee's all rights, claims and interest in said flat is hereby fixed at Rs. 58,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty eight lacs Only). which will be paid by the Developer to the Allottee after deducting TDS as applicable through Cheque No 148592 dated 24/07/17, Cheque No 00.2785 dated 14/08/2017 and Cheque No 002786, 002787 dated 24/07/2018 drawn on New Delhi. Developer has delivered aforesaid Post Dated Cheque to Allottee. Upon encashment of aforesaid Post Dated Cheque:

(i) all rights, claims and interests of Allottee in the said unit shall be deemed to have transferred back to the Developer, without requirement of execution of any further document; and

(ii) all receipts issued by Developer to Buyer and aforesaid Builder Buyer Agreement/MOU executed between Developer and Allottee shall be cancelled and deemed to have been null-and-void and will be returned back to the developer;

(iii) Amount of ST paid by Allotee will also be refunded.

b. Simultaneously Allotee has to complete formalities and fill cancellation form and thence liability regarding payment of Development Charges and Interest Free Maintenance Security in respect of said unit shall be of Developer.”

6.1 While referring to the aforesaid clause 2, it is contended that the aforesaid buy-back agreement was to come into effect only upon encashment of the post-dated cheques issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.1/plaintiff, therefore, in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 06.07.2016 executed between the parties, it is only the Courts at New Delhi, which are to have exclusive jurisdiction in terms of clause (c) (as available at page 40 of the paperbook) thereof, which reads as under:-

“c). This Memorandum of Understanding is executed at New Delhi and Courts in New Delhi alone will have the exclusive jurisdiction over this Memorandum of Understanding to the exclusion of all other courts and Memorandum of Understanding shall be set to and construed in accordance with the Laws of India.”

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent-plaintiff has opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for petitioner-defendant No.1.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the paperbook with their able assistance.

9. The short question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Civil Courts at Gurugram had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff ?

10. At the outset it would be gainful to refer to section 20 of CPC, which governs the institution of suits based on the residence/business of the defendant and the place where the cause of action arises. The section reads as under:-

"20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

10.1 It is thus clear that in terms of Section 20(c) of CPC, a Court within whose local limits the cause of action, either wholly or in part, arises, would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

11. It is well-established that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which the plaintiff must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour. Therefore every material fact which the plaintiff has to prove to succeed and every fact which the defendant would have a right to traverse forms the cause of action for the suit. It is not disputed that cause of action depends more on the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, but has no relation to the defence which may be set up by the defendant. Therefore to find out if the Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the facts as set forth in the plaint would have to be looked into.

11.1. It is also well settled that while considering territorial jurisdiction at the stage of Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the Court is required to proceed on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, assuming the same to be correct. Section 20(c) CPC provides that every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

12. In the present case, in the plaint (Annexure P-7) filed by the respondent/plaintiff, the following averment has been made in para Nos.23 and 25:-

“23. That the cause of action for filing the present suit firstly arose on different dates and times namely in June/July 2018 when cheques issued by defendants were bounced (as detailed in Para no. of the Plaint), thereafter on dates of correspondence ie, on 24/09/18, 28/09/18, 1/10/18, 05/10/18, 10/10/18 and reply to notice dated 10/12/18 and finally arose 20 days back when the defendants finally refused to pay back/refund the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff.

xxx xxx xxx

25. That the cause of action partly arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as the cheques issued under buy back agreement were bounced, various correspondence were also made within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court, hence this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.”

12.1. A bare perusal of the aforesaid averments made in the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Gurugram. The jurisdiction of the said Courts has been invoked, inter alia, on the ground that the cheques issued by petitioner-defendant No.1 under the Buy Back Agreements were presented through the plaintiff’s banker, HDFC Bank, Palam Vihar, Gurugram, and were dishonoured; the return memos were received at Gurugram; and the subsequent correspondence between the parties was also exchanged from the said place.

13. It is not in dispute that the suit instituted by respondent No.1- plaintiff is for recovery of the amount allegedly payable by the defendants under the Buy Back Agreements. The cheques relied upon by the plaintiff are stated to have been issued by defendant No.1 towards discharge of the liability arising therefrom. No doubt, the agreements between the parties were executed at New Delhi, the property in question is situated at Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and the registered office of defendant No.1 is at New Delhi; however, these facts by themselves would not be determinative of the issue of territorial jurisdiction if a part of the cause of action, forming the basis of the relief claimed in the suit, is pleaded to have arisen at Gurugram.

14. As regards the reliance placed by the petitioner on clause (c) of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 06.07.2016, suffice it to say that the same does not advance the case of the petitioner. A bare perusal of clause (c) of Memorandum of Understanding dated 06.07.2016 would reveal that the said clause confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at New Delhi “over this Memorandum of Understanding”. The suit, however, is for recovery of the amount allegedly payable under the buyback agreements, on the basis of the cheques issued in discharge thereof, which were dishonoured. Clause 2 of the buyback agreement dated 06.07.2016, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, only provides for the consideration and the mode of its payment and does not contain any clause excluding the jurisdiction of the Courts other than those at New Delhi. A clause ousting the jurisdiction of Courts which otherwise have jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC has to be clear and specific.

15. Evidently, the plaintiff’s case is that the cheques issued by the petitioner-defendant No.1 under the buyback agreements were presented by him in his bank at Gurugram, which were dishonoured, and the return memos were received at Gurugram and even the subsequent correspondence was also exchanged from Gurugram. The relief claimed in the suit is a decree for recovery of the amount payable under the buyback agreements, which is based on the dishonoured cheques issued in discharge thereof, and hence this Court is of the view that the dishonour of the cheques at Gurugram, which is a part of the cause of action for the plaintiff’s suit, would bring the suit within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Gurugram.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Devi Alias Shanti Mishra v. Union Of India reported in (2020) 10 SCC 766, while considering the meaning of cause of action with reference to territorial jurisdiction, but with reference to a case arising out of service law held that even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. Therefore following the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on the basis of the peculiar facts of the present case, I am of the view that the Lower Court has rightly rejected the application under order 7 rule 10 CPC filed by petitioner.

16.1 The learned Trial Court did not commit any error in holding that, on the averments made in the plaint, a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Gurugram. The impugned order dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

17. Resultantly, the present civil revision petition fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

18. It is clarified that this Court has examined only the question of territorial jurisdiction and has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims of either party, which shall be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law.

19. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.

Petition dismissed.

********