The Court examined the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and relevant case laws to determine the rejection of the plaint.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

IA.22205/2015 (IA. /2016) (under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by the plaintiff)

1. This is an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment to the plaint. Registry is directed to register this application in the year 2016 as the suit has been registered as a Commercial Suit in 2016.

2. By this application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’), the plaintiff wishes to amend paragraph 3 of the plaint by inserting the sentence: “Thusopen mutual current account between the parties to the suit came into existence.” Learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant submits that the necessity of filing this application has arisen on account of the fact that the defendant has made an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 27.06.2015, wherein the defendant has raised a technical objection that there are no pleadings to the fact that the parties maintained an open mutual current account and consequently, the suit is barred by limitation. Counsel further submits that the defendant has also instituted a suit against the plaintiff wherein the defendant himself has admitted that there was an open mutual current account between the parties to the suit.

3. Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the non-applicant, submits that the present application is misconceived for the reason that the statement of account which has been filed along with the suit does not show that the parties maintained an open mutual current account. He submits that even if the amendment is allowed, his objection with respect to the nature of account be kept open.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. While allowing amendment, this Court does not have to, at this stage, decide as to whether an open mutual current account between the parties was opened or not. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The objection of Mr. Singhal is kept open. Let the amended plaint be taken on record.

5. The application stands disposed of.

IA.12641/2015 (IA. /2016)(Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant)

6. This is an application has been filed by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Registry is directed to register this application in the year 2016 as the suit has been registered as a Commercial Suit in 2016.

7. By the present application the defendant prays for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.

8. Necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of the application are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery in the sum of Rs.96,89,850.24. As per the plaint, the plaintiff company had appointed the defendant as its distributor to supply pharmaceuticals preparations and products manufactured by the plaintiff company inter alia to the Health Department, Delhi Government and MCD. The plaintiff company supplied its manufactured pharmaceutical products against orders placed by the defendant and raised appropriate bills on the agreed terms and conditions printed at the footnote of the invoices. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff company received ‘on account’ payments from time to time from the defendant for the supplies made to him which were duly entered into the books of accounts maintained in its regular course of business. All debit notes of the defendant stand adjusted and accounted for in the books of account of the plaintiff company and no debit note of the defendant is pending. To this end, the plaintiff had sought amendment of the plaint and has added the sentence that “Thus open mutual current account between the parties to the suit came into existence.”

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/ non-applicant submits that as per the terms and conditions printed on the footnote of the invoices, in case the defendant