The court emphasized the importance of written statements and denial of allegations in determining the acceptance of contentions at an early stage of the case.

ORDER

Yogesh Khanna, J. - I.A. Nos. 1790-91/2020 & 12937/2021

1. Application being I.A. No.12937/2021 is filed by defendant No.1 under Section 151 CPC seeking urgent directions in this matter is taken up with other two applications.

2. The learned senior counsel for the defendants no.1 to 3 argues this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this Suit and the Suit is, even otherwise, barred by limitation. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the defendants the entire cause of action arose at Jaipur; the goods were supplied at Jaipur; payments were to be made at Jaipur and the invoices raised by the plaintiff also notes the jurisdiction to be of Jaipur.

3. Further, it is alleged the entire supplies of iron was made between the year 2014-2015 and the last of such invoices was of dated 30.03.2015 and the present Suit has been filed on 31.10.2018 i.e., much after the limitation had expired and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. It is also submitted, this Court vide an order dated 02.11.2018 had attached an amount of Rs.2.70 crores viz. the amount receivable by defendant No. 1 from defendant No.4 pursuant to an award of Rs. 12.00 crores passed in favour of defendant No. 1. The said amount of Rs.2.70 crores is lying in the FDR with the learned Registrar General of this Court. It is alleged on the basis of this order dated 02.11.2018, 12 other vendors have filed Suit for recoveries and had taken such like attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. It is alleged by defendant No. 1 the amount deposited by defendant No. 1 with the Registrar General of this Court belong to IDBI Bank, a secured creditor.

5. It is alleged an agreement dated 17.06.2014 was entered into between defendant No 1 and defendant No.4 for construction of 11 towers of different categories of dwelling units located at Air Force Naval Housing Board, Village Boitawala, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The defendant No. 1 vide work order dated 28.08.2014 sub-contracted the construction of the aforesaid project to defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 approached IDBI Bank for issuance of bank guarantee in favour of defendant No.4. The aforesaid bank guarantee was illegally encashed by defendant No.4 against which the defendant No. 1 had invoked arbitration and an arbitration award was passed in favour of defendant No. 1.

6. The IDBI Bank has also filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (I.A. No.2181/2019) seeking impleadment as a party in this suit and an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC (I.A. No.3649/2019) seeking vacation of the order dated 02.11.2018. Both these applications are still pending. The applicant submits the IDBI Bank vide its letter dated 15.12.2020 had offered to settle the loan account of defendant No. 1 as maintained with IDBI Bank. The IDBI Bank had approached the Ld. DRT-II, Delhi where its OA No. 1080/2017 titled "IDBI Bank Limited v. M/s.Maxout Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." and vide I.A. No.382/2021 sought remittance/transfer of amount lying deposited with Patiala House Courts in 8 such like matters. Vide order dated 26.02.2021, the Ld. DRT-II, Delhi was pleased to allow the said I.A. and had requested/directed the Ld. Commercial Judge, Patiala House Courts to release the amounts lying deposited with the Courts for utilization of the same in SKBY Scheme of IDBI Bank. This Court refused to interfere in the Writ Petitions filed by those 8 vendors and later they also filed an appeal before the Ld. DRT-II, Delhi, which is pending.

7. Vide order dated 03.05.2021, the Ld. Commercial Judge-03, Patiala House Court had directed release of the amounts deposited in all 4 matters. Similar request is made in the present case.

8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to undated cheques listed at page No. 36 of the documents filed by the plaintiff to say such cheques were blank cheques and though the plaintiff claims those were handed over to it in May, 2016 but such argument is made only to increase the period of limitation but i