VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision is directed against the Order dated 13. 5. 2000 disposing of the Defendant/revisionist s application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The Defendant had prayed for the return of the Plaint, since in its opinion Courts at Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.

( 2 ) IT is well established that at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 10 or Order VII Rule 11 the averments in the Plaint should alone be looked at. Reference need only be directed to Saleem Bhai Versus State of Maharashtra, 2002 X AD (S. C.) 537. This principle may be somewhat enlarged by making it permissible to also look at the documents filed by the Plaintiff. This is for the reason that the Plaintiff cannot deny the genuineness of documents filed by him. This presumption, however, would not extend to the extremity that every statement made in the document also stands admitted by the Plaintiff. Let us consider the case of a Notice issued by the Plaintiff, and the Reply received thereto. This Reply to the Notice may be filed by the Plaintiff along with the Plaint. In the Reply the Defendant may take any number of objections or positions. By mer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document