The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court must consider the entire plaint averments before rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, and specific averments made in the plaint can establish the court's territorial jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

I.A. 19709/2022-O-7, R-11 (D-1)

1. This is an application filed by the defendant no.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

2. A brief factual matrix of the present suit, as may be necessary for the adjudication of the application may be noted at the outset.

3. The plaintiff claims to be in the business of construction, supply of man power, trading of materials and hiring of equipments etc, having its corporate office at UGF-67, World Trade Center, Babur Road, New Delhi. Based on the work order issued by defendant no.2 on 15.06.2018, the plaintiff supplied man power to defendants for construction work at the head office of Hyundai Motors India, Gurugram, Haryana.

4. It is the plaintiff's case that despite availing the services of man power supplied by it, the defendant no.2 failed to make payments and even the cheques issued by defendant no.2 towards part of the said payment were dishonoured. However, as despite the plaintiff's repeated requests, no payments were made by the defendants and consequently on 03.10.2019, the parties had a meeting at Hyundai Motors' office at Jasola, New Delhi where the defendants agreed to pay a sum of Rs 7,67,30,826/- towards full and final settlement of its dues. The agreement was duly recorded in writing and a `Payment Certificate' dated 03.10.2019 to this effect was issued by the defendants and the same was counter signed by the plaintiff. Pursuant thereto, the defendant no.1 issued two cheques towards part payment. The plaintiff deposited these two cheques in its bank account, with the Axis Bank, Sector 24, Rohini, New Delhi, but again one of the cheques got dishonoured. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, District-North West Delhi, which complaint is still pending.

5. It is in these circumstances that the present suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs 7,05,92,360/- along with interest from the defendants has been filed. It may be noted at this stage itself, that the right of the defendants to file their written statement already stands closed and therefore vide this order, only the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC filed by the defendant No.1 is being decided.

6. In support of the application, the only ground urged by the learned counsel for the defendant no.1 is that this Court does not have the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and therefore the plaint ought to be returned for being filed before an appropriate forum. She submits that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have their office in Delhi and the agreement based on which the claim for recovery has been made by the plaintiff was also entered into between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 at Chennai. Furthermore the man power was admittedly provided at the headquarters of Hyundai Motors Gurugram. She further submits that the plaintiff's plea that since the cheques were presented by the plaintiff with its bank in Delhi, and therefore, a part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi is wholly misconceived. In support of his plea, she relies on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/S Mountain Mist Agro India (Pvt.) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Mr S. Subramaniyam, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 39.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that contrary to the stand of the defendant no.1, the plaintiff has its corporate office in Delhi, and submits that the plaintiff in para 1, 10, 14 & 21 of the plaint has specifically pleaded that it was operating from its office in Delhi where it received the cheques which were deposited with its bank in Delhi, and therefore a part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. Furthermore, the plaintiff has also specifically averred that the defendants had admitted their l