Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
M/s. Mitta India Private Limited, Gaziabad - Petitioner
Versus
Harpreet Industries, Ludhiana - Respondent
CR No.3335 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided on : 11-5-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal
The rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is a drastic step and can only be based on the contents of the plaint, not the defendant's stand. The issue of territorial jurisdiction is a disputed question of fact that can only be decided on appreciation of the evidence of the parties.
Headnote:
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Territorial Jurisdiction - The court dismissed the application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, emphasizing that the rejection of the plaint is a drastic step and can only be based on the contents of the plaint, not the defendant's stand. The court found the defendant's application to be malafide and an attempt to delay the proceedings, as the issue of territorial jurisdiction had already been framed and the evidence stage was ongoing.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, claiming lack of territorial jurisdiction by the Civil Court at Ludhiana. The application was dismissed by the trial court, leading to the revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the defendant's application to be malafide and an attempt to delay the proceedings. It emphasized that the rejection of the plaint is a drastic step and can only be based on the contents of the plaint, not the defendant's stand.
Issues: The key issue was the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC based on territorial jurisdiction, and the malafide intention of the defendant in moving the application at a late stage of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic step and can only be based on the contents of the plaint, not the defendant's stand. The court also highlighted that the issue of territorial jurisdiction had already been framed and the evidence stage was ongoing, making the defendant's application untimely and malafide.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Service Authority, Ludhiana.
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the application moved by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’) for rejection of plaint, has been dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the paper book.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Civil Court at Ludhiana has no territorial jurisdiction. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be moved at any stage of the suit. He further contended that the learned trial Court has not given any findings that the Civil Court at Ludhiana will have jurisdiction while dismissing the application. Thus, he contended that as the Civil Court at Ludhiana has no territorial jurisdiction so the application has been wrongly dismissed by the learned Trial Court.
4. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. I find that the present application has been moved with malafide intention just to delay the proceedings of the case. The issues in this case were framed on 11.09.2012. The issue regarding territorial jurisdiction was also specifically framed. This fact is not disputed that the evidence of the plaintiff was already closed. The defendant has also led the evidence and the present application was moved when the case was pending at the stage of the evidence of the defendant.
5. It is the settled principal of law that for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint, only the contents of the plaint needs to be looked into. The stand of the defendant in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. The rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic step to terminate the civil action at the threshold. The condition precedent to exercise this power is stringent. In the instant case, the rejection of the plaint is being sought on the ground that Civil Court at Ludhiana has no territorial jurisdiction. The issue regarding this dispute has already been framed by the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the question regarding territorial jurisdiction is always the disputed question of fact which can only be decided on appreciation of the evidence of the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that from the contents of the plaint it can be determined that the Civil Court at Ludhiana has no jurisdiction.
7. As already mentioned, the conduct of the petitioner-defendant also appears to be malafide as this application has been moved at the stage when its evidence was going on and the plaintiff-respondent has already concluded its evidence. Moreover, the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Court was already framed by the learned Trial Court. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order to call for any interference by this Court.
8. Resultantly, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Service Authority, Ludhiana.
