CR No. 36/2018

Page 1 of 25

HIGH COURT OF JAM

U AND KASHM

IR

AT JAM

U

CR No. 36/2018

IA No. 01/2018

Caveat No. 3464/2018

Date of order:

26 .10 .2018

F2Fun and Fitness Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

Golden Globe Fitness Pvt.

Ltd. and another

Coram

:

Sanjev Kum

ar

, Judge

Apearance:

For the petitioner(s)

: M

r. R.K.Gupta, Sr. Advocate with M

r. Vikas M

agotra,

Advocate, M

r. Pranay

P. Singh, Advocate, M

r. Udhay

Bhasker, Advocate and M

r. Ratish M

ahajan, Advocate

For the respondent(s)

: M

r. Rahul Bharti, Advocate and M

r. Satinder Gupta,

Advocate

i/

W

h

ether to be reported in

Yes

.

Press/M

edia?

ii/

W

h

ether to be reported in

Yes

.

Digest/Journal?

1. This

Revision Petition

filed under Section 115 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1977

is directed against the O

rder

dated 30.07.2018 pased by the learned City Judge,

Jammu

(hereinafter

refered to

as

the

trial Court) in a Civil Suit

titled

Golden Globe Fitness Pvt. Ltd. v. F2Fun and Fitnes

(India) Private Ltd. and

another

whereby

the application

moved by the

petitioner

under Order 7 Rule 11

of the Code

CR No. 36/2018

Page 2 of 25

of Civil Procedure (CPC for short)

for rejection of the

plaint has ben dismised.

The petitioner

herein

was

defendant No.1 in the trial Court

, and t

he respondent No.1

herein was the plaintiff

, who had filed the

suit against the

petitioner and

respondent No.2

herein.

To avoid confusion,

t h e

p a r t i e s

a r e

h e r e i n a f t e r

the

defendant

N o . 1 ”

a n d

“

the

p l a i n t i f f ” .

The facts, in nutshel, which

have gi

ven rise to the filing of this R

evision

Petition are

:-

2. Th e plaintiff

a Private Limited C

ompany incorpora

ted

under the Compan

ies Act, 1956

through its M

anaging

Director filed a suit before the trial Court inter alia for a

decree of declaration that

the

g r a n t

o f

G o l d ’ s

franchise

e by the

defendant No.1

on behalf of the

defendant No.2

(respondent No.2 herein)

in favour of the

plaintiff

was irevocable and perpetua

l with consequential

relief of Permanent Prohibitory I

njunction against the

defendant No.1

from

terminating

/disturbing

/infringing sub

franchise

e of

plaintiff

G o l d ’ s

G y m .

A s

i s

a

the plaint, suit was founded on an oral mutual agrement

entered into between the

defendant No.1

and

the

plaintiff

.

The

plaintiff

, in his plaint

, averred that the sub

-franchise

e

o f

G o l d ’ s

G y m

w a s

g r a n t e d

b y

defendant No.1

on

behalf of the

defendant No.2 to the

plaintiff

pursuant to an

oral agrement

in terms whereof a

sum

of Rs.30,0,0/

-

was paid as premium in advance. The

plaintiff

, in the

CR No. 36/2018

Page 3 of 25

plaint

, further claimed that the

pursuant to the

understanding arived at betwen him and the

defendant

No.1

, the

plaintiff

mobilized

all his

re source

s and

established

a Gym at Bahu Plaza, Jammu after investing

about thre crore

s. It was also claimed that apart from the

premium of Rs.30,0,00/

-, the

defendant No.1

was also

entitled to receive a normal monthly royalty payable by the

plaintiff

for the first thre years from its commision. In

nutshel

, the case as set up by the

defendant No.1

in the

plaint was that sub fra

nchise

e was granted to the

plaintif

subject to the terms and conditions which were not

reduced into writing in the shape of any legal

ly valid and

binding document but were acted upon by the parties by

their conduct.

An oral contract

, in esence, was set u

p by

the

plaintiff

. The

plaintiff

also contends that it was served

with a communication dated 14.03.2014 pur

portedly

isued by some