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 pleadings.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (ORAL)--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 argumen