J U D G M E N T

1. This is a revision petition filed in terms of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 19081 by the petitioner, who is the defendant in the main suit bearing No. 379/20182 instituted by the respondent/plaintiff before the learned Additional District Judge-08 (West District), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi3, assailing the impugned order dated 21.02.2022, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 10 & 11 of the CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant.

1 CPC

2 Civil suit

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the respondent/plaintiff is a Private Limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at C-134, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi-110015 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Plastic Dana of different colours, polypropylene etc. and supplying the same to its customers.

3. The petitioner/defendant had business dealings with respondent/ plaintiff under which the petitioner purchased the materials of plastic dana of different colours/reinforced-ABS etc. from time to time on a credit basis and made payments to the invoices raised. Due to the aforesaid business transactions, there arose a debit balance of Rs.10,25,916/-, which became payable by the petitioner/defendant along with interest @ 18% per annum as per the terms of the agreement between the two parties. The said amount was not paid despite a legal notice dated 16.01.2018, which was sent on 18.01.2018, and thus, a suit for recovery was filed on 03.04.2018 by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant before the learned Trial Court.

4. Succinctly put, the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 21.02.2022, comprehensively dealt with the expression „cause of action‟. Further, insofar as the issue of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it was observed that as per the Memorandum of Association (MoA), the registered office of the plaintiff i.e. M/S

3 Trial Court Polyblends India Pvt. Ltd. is situated in Delhi. However, as per the invoices, the address of the plaintiff is shown in Gurgaon, Haryana and that of the defendant in Greater Noida. Referring to Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC and considering the fact that a plaint is to be taken at its face value, the learned Trial Court held that it has the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

5. As regards the period of limitation, the learned Trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff received the last payment on 12.03.2015 and the legal notice was issued on 16.01.2018, which implies that the amount was demanded by the plaintiff on 16.01.2018. Further, the suit before the learned Trial Court was filed on 03.04.2018, which was well within three years from the date of issuance/service of legal notice and thus, the suit was well within the limitation period.

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AT THE BAR:

6. During the course of arguments, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that last part payment of Rs. 25,000/- was received by them from the petitioner on 12.03.2015 and thereafter, no payment was made and, in this regard, a reply was also filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Per Contra, the petitioner in its written statement alleged that the last bill was raised on 31.01.2014 and thereafter, no goods were ever purchased by the petitioner from the respondent for the sole reason that the respondent started supplying defective and sub-standard quality of goods and there has been no dealing after 31.01.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in the case of Snam Abrasives Pvt. Ltd. v. San Sun Enterprises.4

7. It was further averred by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the suit filed before the learned Trial Court, the period of limitation of three years started from 02.03.2014, which would have been ended on 01.03.2017 and the respondent had filed the suit on 03.04.2018, which is barred under Article 15 of the schedule under the Limitation Act, 1963 and in thi