2025:HHC:14462 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP No.103 of 2024 In CS No.49 of 2023 Reserved on: 07.05.2025 Decided on: 19.05.2025 Rohit Sood ….Plaintiff Versus M/s Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd. & another ...Defendants Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the plaintiff: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate.

For the defendants: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur & Mr. Manik Sethi, Advocate.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge This application has been filed by the defendants with a prayer to reject the plaint on the grounds firstly, that it does not disclose any cause of action, secondly, the plaint is barred by law and thirdly, the plaint has been filed in a Court having no territorial jurisdiction.

2. It is averred that the plaint filed by the plaintiff is without jurisdiction having been filed in a wrong forum with inherit lack of jurisdiction as the nature of dispute raised by the plaintiff makes it a commercial dispute under Section 2(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and for such reasons the plaint could not have been instituted in this Court. The plaint is also alleged to be without disclosure of cause of action. The defendants have further alleged that the suit is barred by law of limitation. Further it has been stated that the parties have agreed by way of an agreement that all interse disputes arising between them from the work order awarded to the plaintiff by defendants shall be subject only to jurisdiction of Courts at Hyderabad.

3. It has also been claimed in the application that the defendants have made full and final payment of all dues to the plaintiff, who has already issued “no claim certificate” and “no market liability certificate” in favour of the defendant on 08.05.2019. The plaintiff is alleged to have admitted such fact in the plaint. The defendants have further claimed to have released the security/retention amount in favour of the plaintiff on 12.07.2019.

4. The defendants have also submitted in the application that the work awarded to the plaintiff had come to an end on 05.10.2018 and the plaintiff was required to make full and final settlement. As per work order dated 11.07.2012 and its subsequent amendments, the plaintiff had submitted his invoices/bills on the basis of minimum wages notified by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh from August 2014 to October 2018. The defendants have already honoured the commitment as per minutes of meeting dated 24.10.2018 and have released the retention money/security amount to the plaintiff.

5. The application has been resisted and contested by the plaintiff.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

7. It is more than settled that while deciding application for rejection of plaint on the grounds that the plaint is without cause of action or/and barred by law, the Court is required to look into the contents of the plaint only and nothing else. At such stage, the defence raised by the defendant(s) or any other material becomes irrelevant. In Saleem Bhai & others vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2003) 1 SCC 557, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“9. A perusal of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at any stage of the suit-before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. the averments in the plaint are germane……..”

8. In addition to the contents of plaint, glance and perusal of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff along with plaint is also permitted. A reference in this regard can be made to paragraphs 23.6, 23.7 and 23.8 of th