Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005643

C.R.P. 276/2017 & connected matter Page 1 of 13

$~4 & 5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

4

+

C.R.P. 276/2017

M/S. RADNIK EXPORTS & ORS.

….. Petitioners

Through:

Mr. A.J. Khan, Advocate.

versus

M/S. STL GLOBAL LIMITED

….. Respondent

Through:

Mr. Aditya Goel, Advocate.

5

+

C.R.P. 277/2017

M/S. RADNIK EXPORTS & ORS.

….. Petitioners

Through:

Mr. A.J. Khan, Advocate.

versus

M/S. STL GLOBAL LIMITED

….. Respondent

Through:

Mr. Aditya Goel, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

C.M. APPL. 46454/2017 (condonation of delay in filing the revision

petition, by Petitioners) in C.R.P. 276/2017

C.M. APPL. 46463/2017 (condonation of delay in filing the revision

petition, by Petitioners) in C.R.P. 277/2017

1.

Present applications have been preferred on behalf of the

Petitioners for condonation of delay of 41 days in filing both the

revision petitions.

2.

Issue notice.

3.

Mr. Aditya Goel, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of

the Respondent.

4.

For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed.

Digitally Signed

By:KAMAL KUMAR

Signing Date:20.12.2022

11:48:47

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005643

C.R.P. 276/2017 & connected matter Page 2 of 13

5.

Delay of 41 days in filing both the revision petitions,

respectively, is condoned.

6.

Applications stand disposed of.

C.R.P. 276/2017 & C.M. APPL. 46452/2017 (Stay)

C.R.P. 277/2017 & C.M. APPL. 46461/2017 (Stay)

7.

Both these Revision Petitions lay challenge to a common order

dated 05.08.2017 passed by learned Trial Court in C.S. No. 8957/2016

and C.S. No. 8339/2016 respectively, whereby applications filed by

the Defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaints,

have been dismissed. Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in the suits

before the Trial Court and Petitioners herein are the Defendants.

Parties are referred by their litigating status before this Court, for the

sake of convenience.

8.

Facts to the extent necessary for disposal of these petitions are

that Respondent filed two suits for recovery against the Petitioners in

the Trial Court at Faridabad, Haryana. Petitioners filed applications

under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 20 CPC for rejection

of the plaints, on the ground that the Court at Faridabad did not have

jurisdiction to entertain and try the suits. The applications were

dismissed by the District Judge, Faridabad vide order dated

24.10.2013. Revision Petitions preferred against the said order were

allowed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide judgment

dated 18.02.2015, directing the Trial Court at Faridabad to return the

plaints to the Respondent for being presented before the Court at

Delhi, within 4 weeks of the endorsement by the Court. It was also

held that if the suits were filed within 4 weeks from the endorsement

by the Trial Court, bar of limitation shall not be raised by either party

and suits shall be decided in accordance with law.

9.

Upon receiving the original plaints, Court fee and the

documents, Respondent initially filed the suit being C.S. No.

Digitally Signed

By:KAMAL KUMAR

Signing Date:20.12.2022

11:48:47

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005643

C.R.P. 276/2017 & connected matter Page 3 of 13

8957/2016 in this Court on 29.06.2015, for recovery of a sum of

Rs.19,08,972.66/- with costs etc. and on enhancement of pecuniary

jurisdiction of the Trial Court, the same was filed before the Trial

Court on 24.02.2016. C.S. No. 8339/2016 was filed before the Trial

Court for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,52,471/-. Pertinently, both the

suits initially filed as Summary suits, were