AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
CM APPL. 58719/2025 & CM APPL. 58720/2025 [Exemption]
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The Applications stand disposed of.
CM APPL. 58721/2025 [Condonation of delay]
This is an Application filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 14 days in re-filing the present Appeal.
For the reasons as stated in the Application, the delay is condoned.
The Application stands disposed of.
C.R.P. 263/2025
The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] against the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by learned District Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by the Petitioner/Defendant for rejection of the Plaint has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court.
Briefly the facts are that a suit for recovery in the sum of Rs.41,88,607/- was filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs against the Petitioner/Defendant. An Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC [hereinafter referred to as the “Application”] was filed by the Petitioner/Defendant alleging that that plaint does not disclose any cause of action and that the no part of the cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi, and thus, plaint ought to be dismissed. It was further stated that the Petitioner/Defendant resided in Uttarakhand and the learned Trial Court did not had jurisdiction to entertain this Petition.
The learned Tribunal after briefly examining the plaint and other related facts found that the part of the cause of action arose within the city of Delhi. It further gave a finding that although various amounts were transferred, some amounts were transferred from the account of the Respondents/Plaintiffs in Delhi. It further found that some of the transactions were negotiated at the office of the Respondents/Plaintiffs in Delhi, thus, relying on Section 20(c) of the CPC, it was held that part of the cause of action arose at the office of the Respondents/Plaintiffs situated at Chandni Chowk Delhi and the Application was dismissed. A finding was also given by the learned Trial Court that the Application has merely been filed to delay the proceedings.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant once again reiterates the same contention as was raised before the learned Trial Court. Learned Counsel submits that the plaint is barred as no part of the cause of action arose in the State of Delhi.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Plaintiffs, who appears on advance service, on the other hand submits that some of the payments, including the payments mentioned in paragraph 19 of the plaint, were made by the Respondents/Plaintiffs to the Petitioner/Defendant from the bank account in Delhi, and thus, the Courts at Delhi have territorial jurisdiction. In this behalf, learned Counsel seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in M/s. Auto Movers v. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt Ltd.1.
It is settled law that in an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the examination of the plaint has to be done on a demurrer, all that is required to be seen is whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and the defence of the defendant is not required to be examined at this stage.
The examination of the plaint shows that a detailed cause of action is set out therein. It is the case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs in the plaint that the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff No.1 previously had a dispute going on at Uttarakhand and as the Petitioner/Defendant was in construction business in Uttarakhand, he had helped him resolving his disputes and thus the Petitioner/Defendant and Respondent No.1/Plaintiff No.1 had gotten acquainted.
It is further the case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs that the Petitioner/Defendant visited the office of the Respondents/Plaintiffs at Chandni Chowk, Delhi and made an offer in respect of a house in Uttarakhand, which offer was accepted, and the Petitioner/Defendant showed a piece of land, for the purchase by Respondents/Plaintiffs. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have contended that the Petitioner/Defendant thereafter took money from the Respondents/Plaintiffs for the purchase of such land. It is the case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs in the plaint that thereafter various other amounts were taken, which have specifically been set out in paragraph 12 of the plaint, totalling to a sum of Rs.32,07,076/-. It is also the case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs that all these payments were made by bank transfers.
The plaint further states that thereafter since no land was shown for purchase, the Respondents/Plaintiffs asked for the return of the amounts paid and since these amounts were not paid by the Petitioner/Defendant, a suit for recovery was filed.
It is apposite to set out the relevant extract of the plaint, in this behalf:
“4.The Plaintiff No.1 had a land dispute going with someone at Uttarakhand and Defendant was in construction business and his works were going on in Uttarakhand therefore, he was known to various persons, the Defendant had helped the plaintiff to resolved the disputes successfully thereafter the Defendant become in good terms with the Plaintiff.
5.On July 20, 2020, the Defendant visited the Plaintiff's office situated at Chandni Chowk and told that his work of government of Uttarakhand at District Uttarkashi still in progress and if the Plaintiff required any assistance regarding anything he can assist him like purchase some land etc. in Uttarakhand. The Plaintiff showed his interest to buy small house at Uttarakhand reason that the mother of Plaintiff has sold their house situated at Khadar Colony, Jaitpur, Part-2 and his mother wanted to live in the lap of nature in her old age and was a little afraid because of Corona.
6.That the Defendant has asked the plaintiff about the budget for the purchase of land at Uttarakhand. The Plaintiff informed that he has budget of 20-25 lakhs. The Defendant stated that he will help in purchase of good land at this price only.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
8.That in the month of November, 2020, the Defendant visited the office of the Plaintiff for purpose to demand money from the Plaintiff. The Defendant straightaway asked the Plaintiff, how much cash the Plaintiff would have, then the Plaintiff said it would be around Rs 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakh Only). The Defendant demanded the said Rs 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakh Only) from the plaintiff and said please provide me monetary assistance as he has to get money from one of the project pending with Uttarakhan Government at Uttarkashi and the amount will be released soon then the Defendant will returned the amount with interest of 24% per annum. The plaintiff hesitated to give the amount but the defendant again and again made request then the Plaintiff discussed the said issue with his mother, the Plaintiff No.2 and also assured her it seems that the defendant is good human being and will return the amount with interest then the Plaintiff No.2 gave the amount of Plaintiff No. 1.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
12.That at the instruction of the Defendant the Plaintiff has made transfer of the following amounts;
Sl. No. Particulars Amount and mode of transfer 1 On 04.11.2020, Rs. 7,50,000/- as given to the Defendant at the office of Plaintiff in cash. Rs. 7,50,000/- 2 On 06.11.2020, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to transfer the amount from the account of the Plaintiff in the account of the Site Engineer of the Defendant situated at Srinagar, the Plaintiff transferred the same. Rs. 40,000/- 3 On 06.11.2020, at the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff transfer the amount to the one of the employees of the Defendant i.e in the account Lokesh Yadav in their account maintained in HDFC Bank Ltd Rs.50,000/- 4 On 07.11.2020, at the request of the Defendant the Plaintiff recharged the mobile of Harinder Singh Mobile 7011488907 through Paytm Rs. 1500/- 5 On 07.11.2020, Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay installment of Paytm loan service of Defendant’s mobile installment paid through Plaintiff’s Paytm Mob. No.9818169525 Rs2516/- 6 Amount was transferred to the account of the wife of a employee of the Defendant Rupa Thapliyal SBI Bank 34695493365 Rs. 34000/- 7 On 09.11.2020, Rs 10,000 was transferred to the account of a boy doing welding on the site of the Defendant Munish Kumar Bank 47880100004696, from the Plaintiffs account Rs.10,000/- 8 On 10.11.2020, Plaintiff transferred Rs.2800/-through his Paytm No.9818169525, for filling diesel in Defendant Vehicle. Rs.2800/- 9 On 12 November 2020, Defendant called and asked Barudutt Sharma 9997823528 to pay Rs.5000/- on Google pay of my friend. Rs.5000/- 10 On November 14, 2020 defendant called and asked for transfer of Rs.15000 done to Jaspal, SBI Bank A/c-31311221439 which I did from my account. Rs.15,000/- 11 Got a call from Defendant on 16 November 2020 and Plaintiff Transferred Rs.13000 to Raman Rahul Chaudhary’s Indusund Bank 201001462181 which plaintiff transferred from his account Rs.10,000/- 12 On 18 November 2020, Plaintiff transferred at the instruction of Defendant transferred Rs.20,000/-to the account of Aone Associates PNB Bank A/c-3247002100147889 Rs.20,000/- 13 On 18.11.2020, at the request of Defendant an amount given to Defendant in cash form Rs.5200/- 14 On 19.11.2020, Defendant took Rs. 1 lakh from plaintiff and gave to his employee Jagdish Chautala Rs.1,00,000/- 15 At the instruction of Defendant Plaintiff transferred Rs.25,000/- Jagdish Kumar Axis Bank 916010071384806& Rs. 5,000/-, Chandra Pal Account. Rs.30,000/- 16 20 November 2020 Defendant instructed Plaintiff to transfer Rs.50000/- to Deloyar Hossain who used to provide them Bengali labour Dilawar Hossain’s sbi bank account 37718642985, Plaintiff transferred from his mother’s account Rs.50,000/- 17 3 transfers were done at the instruction of Defendant on 21 November 2020, 1. In account of Poonam Garg who is the wife of Defendant, in her SBI Bank 36190486174, Rs. 5,000/-2. Reshma Tyagi who is the wife of Defendant’s colleague Mr. Ankur Tyagi. In his Union bank of India account- 693002010003114, Rs.15,000/-3. Satendra Singh, he is friend of Defendant his SBI Bank A/s 34718506555, amount of Rs.10,000/- transferred from Plaintiffs mother’s account at the instruction of Defendant Rs.30,000/- 18 On 23 November 2020, Rs 10878 was transferred to Jagdamba Prasad at the instruction of Defendant Jagadamba Prasad SBI Bank 10972225628, Plaintiff transferred the same from his mother’s account Rs.10,878/- 19 Defendant’s asked plaintiff to give Rs.1400/- to Bisht Ji, the Plaintiff has given the same in cash (23.11.2020) Rs.1400/- 20 On 23.11.2020, Plaintiff paid the Defendant in Cash Rs.40,000/- 21 Gave Rs.5000, cash to Jagdish Chautala on 24 November 2020, Rs.1000/- Diesel was put in the tempo running on the site. Rs. 6,000/- 22 On 25 November 2020, Defendant sent a message and got Rs.1000 paid through Paytm on 98181244.Which I did Paytm from my 9818169525 Rs.1,000/- 23 26 November 2020 at the instruction of Defendant gave to river of JCB for Diesel worth Rs 5000/-, Rs.1000/- was given for electricity bill of labor camp, Rs.15000/- transferred to Deloyar Hossain, his account No. SBI Bank 37718642985, through another Rs.6200/- through Paytm, Rs.900/- gave to labour. Rs.28,100/- 24 25 On 27 November 2020, Plaintiff paid cash for diesel worth Rs 15000/-, Gave cash for food to laborers Rs.990/- and Rs.1000/- to one of labour named Chetan Rs.600/- to Chandrapal for food, gave cash Rs.200 cash for petrol in bike 28 November 2020, gave cash to employee to Defendant 1440+10000+1000+500+130+400 Paid for the expenses Rs.17,790/-Rs.13670/- 26 On, 29 November 2020, Gave to Defendant Rs.50000/- cash and to employee of Defendant for expenses 2880+200+1000 spent on site of the Defendant. Rs.54080/- 27 At the instruction of the Defendant the Plaintiff gave Rs.1000to the defendant on 30.11.2020 in cash. Rs.1,800/- 28 As per instruction of Defendant Transferred Rs.10000/- to Reshma Tyagi, who is the wife of Defendant colleague Ankur Tyagi in her bank account maintained in Union Bank A/c NO.-693002010003114 from the plaintiffs account. Paid Rs.500/- defendant’s mobile bill through paytm. Rs.3000/- transferred to Defendant’s account maintained in Indian overseas bank A/c No.- 163101000008508 transferred from Plaintiffs account Rs.13,500/- 29 On 02.12.2020 Defendant requested the Plaintiff to arrange Rs.10 Lakh but the Plaintiff could arrange Rs.6 Lakh from his friends i.e Hariram, Mahendra, Ramjit Verma, the same cash collected by Defendant from the office of Plaintiff at Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Rs. 6,00,000/- 30 On 2.12.2020, at the instruction of Defendant transferred Rs.15,000/- to the account of Ms. Reshma Tyagi, wife of defendant’s friend, Union bank of India A/c No.- 693002010003114 Rs.15,000/- 30 On 3.12.2020, Defendant called the Plaintiff to make arrangement of some money, On 04.12.2020, the Defendant visited the office of Plaintiff at Delhi and collected Rs.2 Lakh cash Rs.2,00,000/- Defendant again asked to Plaintiff made arrangement for Rs.5 Lakhs to Rs.7 Lakhs, the Plaintiff has no money so he denied the Defendant said his payment will come from Uttarkashi and he will refund the same soon. On 4.12.2020 The Plaintiff sent whats app message stating the total amount of Rs.21,62,234/- (Rupees Twenty one lakh sixty two thousand two hundred thirty four only) 31 On 5 December 2020 at 10:17 am Defendant called the plaintiff and instructed to transfer Rs.5000/- to Khalid, who was his driver. Plaintiff transferred to Khalid PNB Bank A/c-7681001700003665 from his own account. At 12.09 PM again defendant called and instructed to transfer RS.10,000/- to Nazneen to her Bank of Maharashtra Account No.60219406916, the Plaintiff transferred from his account (ICICI) Rs., 15,000/- 32 Defendant called the Plaintiff on 9th December 2020 at 1:28 pm and requested to transfer Rs.10000/- in the account of Nazneen, bank of Maharashtra A/c No.60219406916, Plaintiff transferred from his account (ICICI) 33 On 10 December,2020 the Defendant called the Plaintiff and requested to make payment of Rs.1500 paid to Reshma Tyagi’s Paytm No.9560452670 the Plaintiff paid through his Paytm 9818169525 Rs.1500/- 34 On14th December 2020, Defendant requested for some amount stating that his current account has been blocked and he needs payment, so Plaintiff arranged Rs. 3 Lakhs from his uncle Sanjay Soni and Rs.3 Lakhs from his other uncle Vinod Soni and given to the Defendant Rs.3,00,000/- 35 On 15.12.2020 Plaintiff paid Rs.450/- to Defendant through Paytm Rs.450/- 36 On 16.12.2020, at the instruction and request of defendant, plaintiff paid Ms. Reshma Tyagi Ra.1500/- through Paytm Rs.1500/- 37 18 December, 2020, at the request of defendant, Plaintiff paid Rs.3000/- to Naveen Kumar through Paytm, Rs.2000/- to Pankaj Rana, Plaintiff gave Rs.2.5 lakhs to Defendant in cash. Rs. 2,55,000/- 38 23 December 2020 Plaintiff gave Rs.2000/-through Paytm to Defendant for Petrol, Rs.500/-gave for coolant of the car to Vivek Singh on 9897323198. Rs.2500/- 39 40 On 25th December, 2020, Defendant called and requested to send 20 piece of drill bits from Kashmiri gate bus stand from bus to Srinagar, plaintiff sent the same and the is costing Rs.1300 and Plaintiff gave another Rs.2300/- to Defendant.
On 27 December 2020, defendant requested to give money from Plaintiff Rs.450/- to make Paytm to Pawan Kumar 9873972431 from Plaintiffs 9818169525 (Paytm No.) Screenshot sent to Defendant That the total amount Plaintiff has gave that amount of Rupees (Rs. 590000 + Rs.2162234 previous) Total of Rs 2752234/- till that day
Rs.3600/-Rs.450/- 41 On December 30, 2020, at 12:25 pm, defendant called the Plaintiff and demanded Rs 2.5 lakh. The Defendant said that he will not receive it from any third person’s account. If possible, arrange for cash The Plaintiff gave Rs.2.5 Lakhs in case to the Defendant at his office in Delhi on 31 December 2020 at 11:20 am. And after making the calculation, the plaintiff shared the same on the defendant’s WhatsApp. The total outstanding amount was Rs 3002234/-. Rs.2,50,000/- 42 On 2 January 2021 at 11:20 am, defendant called and demanded Rs.50000/- from Plaintiff. which Defendant promised to return on 20th or 25th January, but Plaintiff had no money therefore, he informed the same to defendant. The Defendant requested again and again stating that the loss would be incurred if the amount will not be arranged then plaintiff made arrangements. The amount transferred into Ankur Tyagi union bank account no. 642702010004555 from plaintiff’s account (ICICI) Rs. 50,000/- 43 At the request of defendant Plaintiff transferred amount of Rs.2500/- in the defendant’s Indian Overseas Bank Account No. 163101000008508 from the Plaintiff mother’s account Rs.2500/- 44 On January 3, 2021, at the request of defendant his wife’s mobile no. 9958940309 was recharged by the Plaintiff through Paytm for the amount ofRs.598/- Rs.598/- 45 On December 13, 2021, at 7:19 pm, The Defendant called the Plaintiff and requested that his labor does not have money for ration, if arrangements can be made then transfer Rs.25000/- On 14 January 2021, Plaintiff transferred the amount from his ICICI Bank account to the account of Shahidul Miya 38776452001 Rs.25,000/- 46 On January 21, 2021, Defendant called the Plaintiff and asked to find a polyester net, which Plaintiff bought and made Paytm of ₹ 3548/- from his number 9818169525. Rs.3548/- 47 On 22nd January, plaintiff got the luggage loaded in the bus and sent it to Srinagar.UK07p A 3141 bus number Rs.200 spent at the request of Defendant. Rs.500/- 48 On February 1, 2021, Defendant requested the Plaintiff to transfer Rs.2500 to his account. Plaintiff transferred the same from his Indian Overseas Bank Account No. 163101000008508 Rs.2500/- 49 On 14 February 2021, at the request of Defendant Plaintiff transferred Rs.40000/- to defendant’s employee’s Dilawar Hossain SBI Bank Account No.37718642985, from his own account. Rs.40,000/- 50 On 15th February, 2020, the Defendant requested for Rs. 4000/- in cash, The Plaintiff has given the same to the Defendant and as per request of Defendant, the Plaintiff gave fare of Bolero for RS.2000/- Rs. 6,000/- 51 On 16th February, defendant requested the Plaintiff to transfer Rs.3000/- to Ritanshu Kandari, one of the employees of the Defendant in his Bank -Punjab and Singh Bank account No. bank 01771000008028, from Plaintiffs account. Rs.3000/- 52 At the request of Defendant, Plaintiff paid Rs.1000/- from his Paytm and Rs.2500/- through Google Pay from the friend Hari Ram Google Pay of the done on 9997809599. Rs.3,500/- 53 On 23.02.2021 at the request of Defendant, Plaintiff transferred Rs.40000/- in the account of Sahidul Miya 38776452001, From Plaintiff own account. Rs.40,000/- 54 On 25.02.2021, at the request of Defendant, the Plaintiff paid for the Petrol worth Rs 300/-. On 26.02.2021, Plaintiff transferred Rs. 10000/- in to the account of one of the employees of the Defendant Sahidul Miya A/c- 38776452001 Rs.10,300/- 55 On March 3, 2021, Defendant sent an account number on WhatsApp of Plaintiff which belongs to one of the employees of the Plaintiff and asked him to transfer Rs.8000/-. Name of the account holder Puneet Yadav, Bank Account-Syndicate Bank A/c No.- 54892010003719, the same was transferred from Plaintiff’s account (ICICI). Rs.8000/- At the request of Defendant, on 03.03.2021 at 1.52 pm, Plaintiff sent the outstanding amount to the Defendant which shows Total Outstanding amount of Rs.31,97,380/-. Defendant called the Plaintiff at 10.33 am on 6 March 2021 and the Plaintiff talked for about 6 minutes. Defendant told the Plaintiff that now the process of billing has started and it is expected that the first payment will come in 10 or 12 days and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to write on a paper the complete details of whatever amount Plaintiff have given toe the Defendant till date from the beginning. The Plaintiff has sent whatsapp message of the complete details of outstanding amount which contains 4 pages. 56 On March 8, 2021 at 8:42 am, the Defendant called the Plaintiff and asked to transfer Rs.2000/-in the account of one of the employee Sahidul Mia. The Plaintiff transferred the same from his account (ICICI). Rs.2000/- 57 The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to give Rs.2000/- cash. On March 9, 2021, Defendant confirmed the same through WhatsApp. On March 11, 2021, at the request of Defendant the Plaintiff got the payment made of Rs.1180/- to Karun Sharm through google pay from his friend. Rs.3180/- 58 On 1 April 2021 at 10:02 pm, defendant called the Plaintiff and requested to transfer an amount of Rs.2000/- to his account The Plaintiff transferred the same in the account of Defendant maintained with Indian Overseas Bank Account No. 163101000008508 Rs.2000/- 59 On May 10, 2021, at 11:14 am, Defendant called the Plaintiff and asked the Plaintiff to transfer through Paytm an amount of Rs.2516/- to Bajaj Finance, which Plaintiff transferred from his Mobile No.9818169525. Rs.2516/- Till now my total amount was Rs 32,07,076/- Rs 32,07,076/- That the Plaintiff has sent screen shots/proof of the aforesaid payments from time to time to the Defendant through his whatsapp on the whatsapp number of the Defendant. All the documents is enclosed here with the suit.
xxx xxx xxx
19.That the Plaintiff was making calls to the Defendant regularly and after various calls and persuasion, the Defendant has made part payments of the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff from time to time and Plaintiff maintaining running account. The details of the payments are as under;
| SI. No. | Particulars | Amt. (in Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Amount of Rs.40,000/- received on 19.02.2022 from Garg and Co. Proprietorship firm of Defendant. | Rs.40,000/- |
| 2. | Amount of Rs.1,00,000/- received on 05.07.2022 from Garg and Co. Proprietorship firm of Defendant | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| 2. | Amount of Rs.20,000/- received on 02.08.2022 from Defendant through his friend Ankur Tyagi. | Rs.20,000/- |
| 2. | Amount of Rs.20,000/- received on 02.08.2022 from Defendant through his friend Ankur Tyagi. | Rs.30,000/- |
| 2. | Amount of Rs.20,000/- received on 23.10.2022 from Garg and Co. Proprietorship firm of Defendant | Rs.30,000/- |
| 6. | Amount of Rs.2,00,000/- received on 01.09.2023 from Garg and Co. Proprietorship firm of Defendant. | Rs.2,00,000/- |
| Total Amount | Rs. 4,00,000/- | |
[Emphasis supplied]
As can be seen from the above, the Plaint sets out a definitive cause of action. The Petitioners are unable to show the Court as to how the Suit does not have a cause of action except for stating what is set out in their defence. It is settled law that for the purposes of an examination under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the defence of a party cannot be looked into.
The Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India and Anr.2, has held that the cause of action for filing a suit would consist of a bundle of facts and the factum of the suit being barred by limitation, ordinarily, would be a mixed question of fact and law for which invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is ruled out. It has further been held that whether the plea taken by the Plaintiff is genuine or legitimate would be a mixed question of fact and law and which would require a response of the defendant. It is further held that the averments in the Written Statement in that behalf in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are wholly irrelevant for the prayers of rejection of the plaint. The relevant extract of the Shakti Bhog Food Industries case is reproduced below:
“8……
11.This position was explained by this Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557] , in which, while considering Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it was held as under: (SCC p. 560, para 9)
‘9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit — before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.’
It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the court to scrutinise the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184] and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express [Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100]…
xxx xxx xxx xxx
22.It is well-established position that the cause of action for filing a suit would consist of bundle of facts. Further, the factum of the suit being barred by limitation, ordinarily, would be a mixed question of fact and law. Even for that reason, invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is ruled out. In the present case, the assertion in the plaint is that the appellant verily believed that its claim was being processed by the regional office and the regional office would be taking appropriate decision at the earliest. That belief was shaken after receipt of letter from the Senior Manager of the Bank, dated 8-5-2002 followed by another letter dated 19-9-2002 to the effect that the action taken by the Bank was in accordance with the rules and the appellant need not correspond with the Bank in that regard any further. This firm response from the respondent Bank could trigger the right of the appellant to sue the respondent Bank. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had eventually sent a legal notice on 28-11-2003 and again on 7-1-2005 and then filed the suit on 23-2-2005, is also invoked as giving rise to cause of action. Whether this plea taken by the appellant is genuine and legitimate, would be a mixed question of fact and law, depending on the response of the respondents.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
The only other ground that has been taken in the plaint is that the Trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. As stated above, it is the case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs that all discussions regarding the transactions happened at their office at Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Some payments have also been made in cash through the account of the Respondents/Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The payments that have been set out in the plaint also have been made from Delhi.
The cause of action to file the plaint as well as the applicability of territorial jurisdiction of the Courts of Delhi has been set out in the plaint in the following terms:
“22.That the Plaintiff is maintaining running account and sent proof of every payment to the Defendant through whats app and the same was also acknowledged by the defendant. Acknowledging the said payment the Defendant has also made some part payment as mentioned in above Para 19 of the suit.
23.That the cause of action for the filing of the present suit arose on various dates as and when the Plaintiff made the payments to the Defendant. The cause of action further arose on 06.03.2021, when the Plaintiff sent the hand written running account to the Defendant against the outstanding account. The cause of action further arose on 10.05.2021, when the Plaintiff has made last payment to the Defendant. The cause of action further arose on 20.08.2021 when the Defendant has made the part payment to the Plaintiff on various dates i.e 02.08.2021, 19.02.2022, 05.07.2022, 02.08.2022, 04.08.2022, 23.10.2022 and 01.09.2023. That till date the defendant has not made the complete payments therefore, the cause of action is still continuing.
24 That the office of the plaintiff is situated in Delhi within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The Plaintiff is doing his business and working for gain in Delhi based office situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. All the discussion regarding the aforesaid transaction happened in Delhi in the office of plaintiff within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The plaintiff has made some payment in cash in his office and some payment has been made through account of Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2. Therefore, the part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, therefore, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the case.”
[Emphasis supplied]
Section 20 of the CPC sets out that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition where the Defendant resides or works or carries on business. Sub-Section (c) of Section 20 of the CPC sets out that the suit can be instituted by the Plaintiff where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. This provision is set out below:
“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.” [Emphasis supplied]
Clearly as per the averments in the plaint, the part of the cause of action have arisen within the State of Delhi, thus, prima facie, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
It is settled law that the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is limited to examine whether the learned Trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in it or has acted with illegal or material irregularity.
The Supreme Court in the case of Ambadas Khanduji Shinde & Ors. v. Ashok Sadashiv Mamurkar & Ors.3 clarified that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to cases of illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the subordinate courts. Under Section 115 of CPC, it is not open for the High Court to correct errors of facts or law unless they go to root of the issue of jurisdiction. It has been held as follows:
“14.Apart from the factual aspect, order lacks merit on the ground of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent factual findings while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is settled law that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to cases of illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the subordinate courts. Under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is not open for the High Court to correct errors of facts or law unless they go to root of the issue of jurisdiction. In the facts on hand, the courts below have passed reasoned orders well within the jurisdiction conferred upon them. We arrive at the conclusion that the High Court committed error in interfering with the judgment and decree of the trial court.” [Emphasis Supplied]
The examination by this Court shows that the Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity which would merit interference by this Court.
The present Petition is accordingly dismissed. The pending Application also stands closed.
However, in view of the fact that the grounds taken before this Court are the same as that were taken before the learned Trial Court, this Court deems it apposite to impose token costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/- payable to “DHCBA Cost A/c No. 15530110179338”.
The parties shall act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.