1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Chamber Summons No. 498 of 2010 with Chamber Summons 302 of 2009. in Suit No.356 of 2009 Ishrat J. Bagdai & Anr .. Plaintiffs v/s. Seasons Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Others ..Defendants Ms.Sunita Potdar i/b. M.A.Sayani for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Bhavik Manek i/b. M/s. Wadia Gandhy & Co. for the Defendant No.2 Mr.Pankaj Vijayan for the Defendant No.3 Mr.Vaibhav Gaikwad i/b. Ashutosh Kulkarni for the Defendant No.4 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 12th April, 2010 P.C. : 1. I have heard learned Advocates on both the sides in the Chamber Summons. The property in respect of which the specific performance is sought is situated beyond the territorial limits of this Court. On reading the text of the plaint without going into the text of the Chamber Summons No. 498 of 2010 it is difficult to accept the stand of the plaintiffs that the 2 agreement was executed at Mumbai. If these two things are considered, I am inclined to observe that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. In view of the above, the plaint will have to be returned to the plaintiffs for filing it before the appropriate court. 2. In the wake of the view which I have taken, there is no need for this Court to express any view on merits of Chamber Summons No.498 of 2010. In view of the aforesaid view, there is no need for this Court to decide the Chamber Summons No.302 of 2009 on merits as the plaint is required to be returned to the plaintiffs for filing it to the proper court. The Court is informed that there is no interim order passed against any of the defendant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed. 3. This Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. It is hereby ordered that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for filing it to the proper Court. 26.4.2010 is the date fixed for returning the plaint to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaint will have to be returned to the advocate for the plaintiffs on 26.4.2010. In view of the aforesaid order, Chamber Summons No.498 of 2010 does not survive and is disposed of with no order as to costs. 3 4. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any views on merits of the Chamber Summons No.498 of 2010. It will be open for the Plaintiffs to amend the plaint which will be returned to them. If amendment application is filed in the Court, then the learned Judge shall hear and dispose of said application in accordance with provisions of law. 5. Chamber Summons No.302 of 2009 has become infructuous in view of the order of return of the plaint and is disposed of with no orders as to costs. 6. As of today there is no interim relief granted against the defendant in Notice of Motion No.635 of 2009. The said motion stands disposed of with no order with no order as to costs. If Plaintiffs want to apply for interim relief in the Court in which the plaint will be lodged, they are free to do so. No views are expressed on merits as regards the said interim relief application. Accordingly, Motion No.635 of 2009 stands disposed of with no orders with no order as to costs. 7. The suit came to be filed, in this Court in the year 2009. It remained 4 pending only at the stage of amendment. I am of the view that this suit can be disposed of at an early date. In view of this as and when the plaint is filed in the appropriate court, the said Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]