ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Set aside the order dated 09.10.2018 in Civil Suit No.727/17 titled 'Gaurav Jain Versus Outlook Publishing (India) Pvt. Ltd.passed by ADJ-05, South, Saket, New Delhi;

b) Pass such further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.”

2. The petitioner/defendant is a publishing house involved in operating various businesses, including a website under the domain name „www.outlookindia.com‟. The respondent/plaintiff had written articles to be published on the petitioner‟s website from 20th March 2014, to 15th May 2014. Thereafter, several communications were exchanged between the parties wherein, the respondent had requested the petitioner to release the pending payment towards the work done by him for the petitioner.

3. The respondent, being aggrieved by the non-payment, filed a recovery suit bearing No. 727/2017, on 10th August 2017, against the petitioner. The petitioner sought Rs.82,500/-, towards the work done by him and Rs.4,12,500/-, allegedly for the damages inflicted by the petitioner upon the respondent by way of causing mental agony and suffering.

4. In the above said recovery suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint of the respondent on the ground of lack of cause of action and being time barred.

5. The application of the petitioner was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 9th October 2018, in the suit bearing No. 727/2017, passed by the learned ADJ, South, Saket, New Delhi. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court had passed the impugned order without considering the entirety of the matter and has failed to take into account that the suit for recovery filed by the respondent lacks cause of action and is also barred by the law.

7. It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the fact that article of the respondent was admittedly published on the website of the petitioner on 15th May 2014. However, the suit for recovery was filed on 10th August 2017. In view of the same, it is clear that the said suit was filed beyond the prescribed period of three years as per the Limitation Act, 1963.

Hence, the same should be rejected for being barred by the limitation.

8. It is submitted that provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, have to be applied strictly and the limitation for the alleged work done has to be reckoned from the date when the work was completed i.e., 15th May 2014.

9. It is submitted that no damages can be awarded for injury to the respondent‟s feelings or his mental distress, anguish, annoyance caused by the breach of contract until and unless the purpose of the contract was to provide peace of mind or freedom of distress.

10. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to take into consideration that in the instant matter, the respondent only wrote articles that appeared on the website of the petitioner, the purpose of which was not to provide peace of mind or freedom from distress to the respondent.

11. It is further submitted that, in view of the above, the claim of damages for the alleged breach of a contract resulting in the mental agony and suffering does not arise and hence, claiming the same is an abuse of the process of law.

12. It is submitted that the respondent failed to justify the alleged damages to the tune of Rs.3,30,000/- for the alleged mental suffering either in his plaint or anywhere in the documents annexed by him.

13. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has erroneously dismissed the petitioner‟s application as the same is evident from the fact that the plaint of the respondent does not disclose any cause of action.

14. It is further submitted that the respondent had sent an email dated