Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
M/s Green Facade Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
RFA(OS)(COMM) 9 of 2018
Decided On : 17-05-2023
Commercial Courts Act - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 of CPC - Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr., (2004) 9 SCC 512, D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 267 - Order XIII-A of CPC
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of outstanding amount against the defendant. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint. The learned Single Judge rejected the plaint and dismissed the suit. The appellant appealed against the order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the learned Single Judge decided the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the principles as envisaged in Order XIII-A of the CPC, though in the absence of any such application under the said order.
Issues: The issues included the rejection of the plaint, the consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and the absence of an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC should have been decided taking the averments made in the plaint as correct, and the principles of Order XIII-A of the CPC should not have been applied without an appropriate application.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The respondent was not precluded from moving an appropriate application under Order XIII-A, if otherwise such recourse is available in law. All the contentions of the parties were reserved.
JUDGMENT
Amit Mahajan, J. The present appeal, under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, has been filed challenging the order dated 19.02.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in CS (Comm) No. 916 of 2016 (hereafter `the impugned order'). The learned Single Judge, by way of the impugned order, rejected the plaint and dismissed the suit instituted by the plaintiff/appellant (herein), for recovery of Rs.2,54,73,672/- along with interest.
2. The appellant is engaged in the business of aluminium fabrication and is also the supplier and installer of aluminium facades for all types of residential as well as commercial projects.
3. It claims that the work orders were received from the defendant/respondent (herein) in respect of various works to be executed at (a) Agro Mall, Rohtak; (b) OPD, Rohtak; (c) ITI, Rohtak; (d) CSOI Club, Delhi; (e) Soulstice Educational, Gurgaon; (f) Rewari; (g) Maandi Farm, Delhi; and, (h) Club House. However, full payments were not made by the defendant which led to the plaintiff filing the suit for recovery of the outstanding amount. The summons were issued and the pleadings were stated to be complete.
4. The defendant filed an application being I.A. No. 1544 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter `the CPC') for rejection of the plaint. The pleadings in the said application were also stated to be complete.
5. The application, however, was pending and the matter was listed before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings in the pending applications and for filing of their respective affidavits of admission/denial of documents.
6. The matter was listed on 10.01.2018, before the learned Joint Registrar, wherein it was noted that the affidavit of admission/denial was filed by the plaintiff; however, the defendant sought further time for filing an affidavit of admission/denial and a last opportunity was granted to the defendant for filing the same.
7. Since the pleadings with respect to the pending applications were complete, the matter was put up before the Court on 19.02.2018. On the said date, the learned Single Judge decided the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and passed the impugned order, which led to filing of the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaint could not have been rejected on the principles of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. He submits that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the averments made in the plaint are to be taken as correct. The Court is to decide the application by taking all the averments made in the plaint to be true. It has to reach a conclusion that no cause of action is made out only on the basis of averments made in the plaint.
9. He submits that in the present case, the Court has gone into the merits of the dispute and has rejected the plaint on grounds which are alien for the purpose of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
10. He submits that one of the grounds taken by the learned Single Judge is that the plaintiff has not filed any document from which the plaintiff can prove its claim in trial.
11. The Court has gone into the correctness of the documents filed along with the plaint, which it is argued, could not have been done at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11.
12. He further submits that the admission/denial was yet to be done by the defendant and therefore, in the absence of any denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff, the learned Single Judge could not have commented on the said documents.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Single Judge, after having carefully perused the plaint as well as the documents in support of the plaint, has rightly reached the conclusion, that the suit was required to be disposed of summarily.
14. He further submits that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and
AI
The Court emphasized the importance of following the procedural requirements and principles of natural justice, specifically in the context of applications under Order VII Rule 11 and Order XIII-A of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear, categorical, unambiguous, and unequivocal admissions for a judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, and the....
Summary Judgment—Suit cannot be summarily decreed at instance of a plaintiff unless such plaintiff satisfies court that suit claim stands duly proved.
Summary judgment may be granted when a party fails to establish a real prospect of successfully defending a claim as demonstrated by vague and insufficient defenses under applicable procedural rules.
The amended Order XIII-A of The Civil Procedure Code applies to suits for Summary Judgment transferred to the Commercial Division, and the plaintiff must provide clear and unequivocal evidence to sup....
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....
Summary judgment under Order XIII-A of CPC cannot be upon inquisition of Court – It is mandatory to serve defendant – Consequences of ‘rejection of plaint’/’return of plaint’ and ‘summary judgment’ a....
Secondary evidence is admissible under Section 65 of the Evidence Act when original documents are not available, and a plaint disclosing a cause of action must be read in its entirety.
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
