FAO (COMM)-182/2023

Page 1 of 16

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 19 September 2023

+

FAO (COMM) 182/2023 & CM APPL. 47294/2023 (Interim Stay)

and CM APPL. 47296/2023 (Condonation of Exceeding Page

Synopsis & List of Dates)

PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD & ANR.

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr. Abhimanyu Garg and

Mrs. Preety Makkar, Advs.

versus

RAJ KUMAR TULSIAN

..... Respondent

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Appellant No. 1, a Private Limited Company and appellant

No.2 its Director, are defendants in a money suit filed by the

respondent/plaintiff, purportedly falling under Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of

the Commercial Courts Act, 2015¹, which suit, after the framing of

issues, is at the stage of recording of evidence of the parties. The

appellants are assailing the impugned order dated 07 July 2023 passed

by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Tis Hazari

Courts, Delhi² under section 13(1) of the CC Act, whereby the

application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended upto date³ for rejection of

the plaint on the ground of the same not having been filed in terms of

1CC Act

2 District Judge

3CPC

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

KUMAR VATS

Signing Date:27.09.2023

17:55:15

Signature Not Verified

FAO (COMM)-182/2023

Page 2 of 16

Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC due to deficient verification of the

„Statement of Truth‟ was dismissed while another application moved

by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 151 of the CPC for

permission to cure the defects in the plaint by taking on record the

„Statement of Truth‟ was allowed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2.

Shorn off unnecessary details, the suit was instituted on 20

March 2021 and it appears that on the first hearing on 22 March 2021

certain

defects

in

the

plaint

were

pointed

out

to

the

respondent/plaintiff and thereafter an application under Order VI Rule

17 of the CPC for making necessary amendments in the suit was

allowed vide order dated 17 November 2021. On completion of the

pleadings, the issues were framed in the matter on 19 January 2023.

Subsequent to the conclusion of recording of evidence of two

witnesses for the respondent/plaintiff examined as PW-1 and PW-2,

the appellants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read

with Order VI Rule 15A CPC and also Section 26(2) of the CPC for

rejection of the plaint. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent/

plaintiff filed the plaint without complying with the provisions of

Order VI Rule 15A of the CPC i.e., neither each page of the plaint had

been signed nor the plaint was verified as per Appendix-I so much so

that it is brought out that a list of documents had not been provided in

terms of the format under the CC Act. It would be expedient to re-

produce the view and reasons advanced by the learned District Judge

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

KUMAR VATS

Signing Date:27.09.2023

17:55:15

Signature Not Verified

FAO (COMM)-182/2023

Page 3 of 16

while passing the impugned order dated 07 July 2023, which reads as

under:-

“23. In my view, curing of defects of Order 6 Rule 15A CPC

would have to be allowed on the same ground as the application

under Section 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed for amendment of the

plaint and one of the main grounds for dismissal of application

under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is that when the proposed amendment

was brought, the suit would be barred by limitation or any other

law. In Naveen Kumar versus Meenakshi Goel⁴ Hon‟ble High

Court while dealing with an application u/O. 6 rule 17 CPC for

amendment in the verification of