Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Naveen Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Meenakshi Goel - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 28 of 2021
Decided On : 18-03-2021
Revision Petition - Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Section 151 CPC - [Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Section 151 CPC] - The court discussed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Section 151 CPC. The court found that the suit was not without cause of action and was not barred by limitation. The court also examined the provisions of Order VI Rule 15A(2) CPC and found that the pleadings were supported by Statements of Truth and affidavits duly signed by the Power of Attorney Holders. The court referred to the legal principles established in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali and Karan Goel v. Kanika Goel, emphasizing that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a drastic one and the court must determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint. The court concluded that the facts of the case did not merit dismissal of the plaint at the threshold.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.55,01,274 against the Defendant for the supply of diesel. The Defendant filed two applications, one under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the other under Section 151 CPC, which were dismissed by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not without cause of action and was not barred by limitation. The court also found that the pleadings were supported by Statements of Truth and affidavits duly signed by the Power of Attorney Holders. The court emphasized the legal principles established in previous cases and concluded that the facts of the case did not merit dismissal of the plaint at the threshold.
Issues: The issues included whether the suit was without cause of action, whether it was barred by limitation, and whether the pleadings were supported by Statements of Truth and affidavits duly signed by the Power of Attorney Holders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established in previous cases to determine whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The court also examined the provisions of Order VI Rule 15A(2) CPC to determine the validity of the pleadings supported by Statements of Truth and affidavits.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Revision Petition and found that the facts of the case did not merit dismissal of the plaint at the threshold.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - Present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 CPC against the impugned judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Trial Court whereby two applications filed on behalf of Defendant have been dismissed. One application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dated 12.02.2020 and the other under Section 151 CPC dated 08.10.2020. Petitioner is the Defendant before the Trial Court and the Respondent is the Plaintiff.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision petition are that the Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.55,01,274/- against the Defendant. Plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s. Veejay Service Station and is engaged in the business of fuel stations and supply of fuel to various petrol pumps. Defendant is the sole proprietor of M/s. Power Plus and is engaged in the business of generator rentals. Plaintiff alleged that she had supplied diesel to the Defendant from November, 2016 to August, 2017 and as per the statement of account maintained by her, an amount of Rs.46,26,809/- is due and payable to the Plaintiff, as on 07.10.2019. Recovery of the said amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. is sought in the suit.
3. On summons of the suit being received, Defendant filed a written statement along with the aforesaid two applications, which were dismissed by the impugned order.
4. Arguments of the Petitioner with respect to the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were that (a) the suit is without cause of action as nothing is brought on record in the plaint to show how and when the cause of action arose; (b) Plaintiff has not attached the original documents with the plaint and has only filed photocopies of the invoices which are self serving documents of the Plaintiff; (c) suit is barred by limitation as no bill was served on the Defendant after 20.08.2016 and (d) Plaintiff has forged and fabricated the bills and has not specifically stated in the Plaint as to when the Defendant made part payment.
5. The Plaintiff contested the said application and filed a reply. It was denied that the bills/invoices were not served on the Defendant. It was averred that the parties had maintained running account and during the period between November, 2016 to August, 2017, multiple transactions have taken place and the bills have been annexed along with the Plaint which reflect that the last payment was made by the Defendant on 02.08.2017.
6. The Trial Court after considering the application and hearing the parties, dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC vide the impugned order on the following grounds :-
(a). Suit is based on Statement of Account of bills which are for the period from 09.11.2016 to 05.02.2017. The statement has been filed along with the copy of the bills and a certificate to that effect, reflecting the amounts received and the goods supplied;
(b). Plaintiff has filed relevant documents and made specific averments in the plaint including the averment that payment of Rs.2 Lakh was received by way of cheque on 02.08.2017; and
(c). The account was a running current account and if part payment is made, the limitation will continue to run from the date of payment as it amounts to acknowledgement. The suit is not barred by limitation, which in any case is a mixed question of law and fact.
7. In so far as the application under Section 151 CPC is concerned, the relief sought by the Defendant was for dismissal of the suit alleging that the Statement of Truth was not filed along with the Plaint. The argument of the Defendant was that the Affidavit / Statement of Truth supporting the plaint was not signed by the Plaintiff, but was signed by an employee, namely, Ms. Charu Khanna and thereafter when the replication was filed, the Statement of Truth accompanying the replication was filed by some other person, namely, Mr. Gurnam Singh, Manager of the Plaintiff. Plaint was not supported by a duly executed Power of Attorney in favour of Ms. Charu Khanna as she has not signed
The court affirmed that a plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 if it discloses a cause of action and emphasized that authorized representatives can validly file affidavits supporting pl....
The court ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without determining if it discloses a cause of action, especially when limitation is a mixed question of law and....
The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided based solely on the averments in the plaint. The court emphasized that such issues require evidence and should be ....
The grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be examined at the stage of defendant's evidence and go into the merits of the suit, which should be decided during the....
The court established that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating a full trial to resolve, rather than dismissal at the application stage.
A cause of action based on an approved bill resets limitation; rejection of plaint under Rule 11 is unwarranted where factual disputes exist.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mere admission of the existence of a document is not sufficient to presume fraud, and the issue of fraud can be considered at the final stage ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
