Back
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
M/S SKRD VET PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ASHOK WADHWA AND ANR – Respondent
/3499/2021
MISJOINDER OF PARTIES AND CAUSE OF ACTION - COMMERCIAL DISPUTE - JURISDICTION - REJECTION OF PLAINT- A common Suit may be filed if there are same defendants; and under Order 1 Rule 1 CPC, if questions of law and facts are similar, then a common Suit may be filed.- In an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, only the contents of the plaint are to be seen.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a pet-healthcare service provider, leased two adjoining office spaces from the respondents. Due to infrastructural problems, the petitioner stopped paying rent and filed a legal notice to the respondents to rectify the issues. The respondents filed a Suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and consequential relief against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the grounds of misjoinder of parties, cause of action, and jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court dismissed the petitioner's application and held that:- A common Suit was maintainable as the petitioner was using the demised premises as one unit.- The respondents had a joint cause of action against the petitioner as the demised premises were being used as one single unit.- The Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the Suit as it had been conferred with the powers of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and had been notified to try commercial transactions with a value of Rs.3 Lakhs to 50 Lakhs.- The petitioner's application was misconceived as it sought to frame an issue regarding jurisdiction and obtain evidence from the parties, which is not permissible in an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11.
Issues: 1. Whether a common Suit is maintainable when the petitioner is using the demised premises as one unit?2. Whether the respondents have a joint cause of action against the petitioner when the demised premises are being used as one single unit?3. Whether the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the Suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Order 1 Rule 1 CPC and Order 2 Rule 3 CPC, a common Suit may be filed if there are same defendants and if questions of law and facts are similar.2. In the present case, the petitioner is the one common defendant and the questions of law and facts are similar, therefore, a common Suit is maintainable.3. The Court has been conferred with the powers of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and has been notified to try commercial transactions with a value of Rs.3 Lakhs to 50 Lakhs, therefore, it has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the Suit.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's Revision Petition and held that the impugned order dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was valid.
Page 1 of 12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
254
CR-3499-2021(O&M)
Date of decision: 11.01.2023
M/s SKRD Vet Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Ashok Wadhwa & Another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for
Mr. Rishi Vohra, Advocate for respondents.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present
Revision
Petition
has
been
filed
by
the
petitioner/defendant seeking setting aside of order dated 03.12.2021
(Annexure P8) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram
vide which application (Annexure P6) filed by the petitioner/defendant
under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint in Civil Suit
No.2310/2021 titled as “Ashok Wadhwa & Another Vs. M/s SKRD Vet Pvt.
Ltd.” has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in pet-
healthcare services and is running pet-clinic in shop/office premises No.DG-
51, Ground Floor, Rodeo Drive, Arcadia-II, South City-2, Sector 49,
Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner had taken the said premises on lease
from the respondent No.1 at a monthly rent of Rs.35,000/- vide three-year
Lease Deed dated 06.10.2018.
SUNENA
2023.02.22 10:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 2 of 12
As the petitioner found the abovesaid premises insufficient for
the clinic, he signed another three-year Lease Deed dated 09.10.2018 with
respondent No.2 herein for taking on lease adjoining office/space premises
No.DG-50, Ground Floor, Rodeo Drive, Arcadia-II, South City-2, Sector 49,
Gurugram, Haryana on a monthly lease rent of Rs.20,000/- (both shops No.
50 and 51 are hereinafter referred to as “the demised premises”). It is the
pleaded case of the petitioner that the petitioner invested almost Rs.20-25
lakh for setting up infrastructure and medical equipment in the aforesaid
premises to start functioning of his clinic. However, it is stated that the
petitioner started facing infrastructural problems soon thereafter as there
was no proper drainage and he faced water problems also. It is submitted
that the petitioner informed the respondents about these problems
telephonically several times, however, the respondents did nothing about
the same and only gave false assurances.
It is further stated that due to water and drainage problems in
the clinic, there was constant smell of sewerage which made the visitors to
the clinic very uncomfortable and therefore, work of the petitioner also
suffered though he kept on paying the lease amount to the respondents. It
has been stated that despite Covid-19 pandemic, he kept on paying the
rent, however, on 02.02.2020, the petitioner telephonically informed the
respondents that he was suffering due to poor infrastructure, water and
drainage problems in the demised premises which had not been rectified
despite frequent requests and therefore, he was not able to pay further
rent and maintenance charges till the said problems were resolved. It has
further been stated on behalf of the petitioner that he was unable to
SUNENA
2023.02.22 10:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 3 of 12
vacate the demised premises despite the problems as he had spent a lot of
money to set up the clinic and invested a lot of money in maintenance and
upkeep of the demised premises.
On 27.03.2021, the petitioner also sent a legal notice to the
respondents calling upon them to rectify the problems in said premises so
that he could restart the clinic operations and restart payment of monthly
rentals.
However, on 22.06.2021, both the respondents herein filed
one Suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent along with
consequential relief under Order 39 Rule 2 CPC against the petitioner. The
petitioner filed an application dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure P6) under Order
7 Rule 11 read with
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
