When deciding an application for rejection of a plaint, a court is strictly confined to the contents of the plaint and accompanying documents. Considering external evidentiary material or defence documents to disprove the existence of a cause of action at the preliminary stage is legally impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR J.

1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Learned District Judge (Commercial Court-02)[“the learned Commercial Court” hereinafter] on an application filed by the respondents as the defendants before the learned Commercial Court in the suit under Order VII Rule 11 [ 11. Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court
to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9;

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”, hereinafter], seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. The learned Commercial Court has essentially relied on certain tax invoices which, according to the learned Commercial Court, indicated that there was no cause of action in favour of the appellant. We may for this purpose reproduce para 17 to 21 of the impugned order thus:

“17. The plaintiff has placed on record copies of tax invoices. The following table shows the relevant details of the said invoices.

In each of the invoice, the buyer is Ganpati Trading Company, located at B-40, 33 Ft. Road, Shiv Vihar, Delhi. The GST number noted therein is 07BCXPM2546R1ZJ. The plaintiff has also placed on record two GST registration certificates. One registration certificate is in the name of Dushyant Mittal ie. the defendant no.2. The trade name is Ganpati Trading Company. The principal place of the said proprietorship is noted as C-1/2, G/F, KH. No. 38/13, Main Road, Amar Vihar, East Delhi, Delhi-94. The GST number is 07CYMPM3344P1ZQ. The other certificate has been issued in the name of Anil Kumar Mittal. The trade name is the same - Ganpati Trading Company. Said proprietorship is stated to be located at Khasra No.49/8, H-40/2, Main 33 Ft. Road, Shiv Vihase Phase-VI, East Delhi, Delhi-94. The GST number is 07BCXPM2546R1ZJ. At the cost of repetititon, as per the plaint, Sh. Anil Kumar Mittal is the father of defendant no.2.

18. From the particulars given in the invoice, it is apparent that the invoices have been issued to Ganpati Trading Company, the proprietorship of Sh. Anil Kumar Mittal. From the documents of the plaintiff, it is also apparent that the proprietorships of the defendant no.2 and his father were separate though th