SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) M/s Hari Gokal Jewellers, a partnership concern filed a suit for accounts against Mr. Satish Kapur while stating that the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 18 lakhs. The plaintiffs were paying the requisite court fee and in the event of decree being exceeding the amount mentioned in the plaint, the plaintiff undertook to pay the additional amount as directed by the Court. The suit was filed on the premise that the defendant was carrying on somewhat similar business under the name and style of satish Kapur and Co. The defendant used to supply raw gold and the parties were having dealings for the last 5 to 6 years. The defendant was selling the raw gold to the plaintiff and he was buying jewelery from it. The payments were being made by cheques issued from time to time by the plaintiff against the bills raised by the defendant. On one occasion, the defendant was paid a sum of rs. 1,60,000/- as a loan and as a measure of accommodation on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter in January, 2004 On these transactions, according to the plaintiff, the defendant would be found to be owing to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- approximately. The plaintiff claims to have made oral and written demands to the defendant including serving a demand notice dated 7th october, 2004 and corrigendum thereto dated 23rd October, 2004 for payment of the amount due to the plaintiff from the defendant but instead of making the said payments, the defendant threatened the plaintiff vide notice dated 16th october, 2004 that the plaintiff owed money to the defendant and as such the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit with a prayer that a decree for account may be passed against the defendant for the period prior to and after the marriage of her daughter in relation to jewelery transactions as well as the loan taken. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for passing of a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts and also for passing such other orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.

( 2 ) SUMMONS in the suit were issued. In response to the said summons, the defendant on 14th January, 2005 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to which the plaintiff filed a reply. After hearing the arguments of the parties on the said application, vide judgment dated 16th February, 2005, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi rejected the plaint by holding that the suit as framed was not maintainable and dismissed the suit with costs of rs. 10,000/- and directed that the registry of the Court to prepare a decree in terms thereof.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED from the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred the present Regular First Appeal. The correctness of the judgment and decree of the trial court has been questioned by the appellant in the present appeal primarily on the following grounds :- (a) the trial Court had directed service of summons on the defendant to settle the issues and as such, without requiring the defendant to file written statement and framing of issues, the Court could not have even entertained an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint much less actually reject the plaint of the plaintiff. In this regard the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nishit M. Prabhu Verlekar Vs. Chandranath Vinayak Dhume and others AIR 1986 Bombay 46 and judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Kanhaya Lal Vs. National Bank of india, Ld 1913 Indian Law Reports Vol. 40 privy council page 598. (b) In view of provisions of Order 8 of the Code, the defendant was obliged to file written statement within a period of 30 days from the date of service of summons or within such extended time as the Court may permit but not exceeding 90 days. The defendant having filed no written statement, the court has exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the objection with re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document