$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 11.08.2023

+ CS(COMM) 291/2022
RT CONSTRUCTION ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Vishal Ranjan, Mr. Sanjay
Jha, Advs.

versus

KOTEC AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD AND

ANR ..... Defendant
Through: Ms.Surabhi Singh, Adv. for D-1

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

I.A. 19709/2022 -O-7, R-11 (D-1)

1. This is an application filed by the defendant no.1 under Order

VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking rejection of
the plaint on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.
2. A brief factual matrix of the present suit, as may be necessary
for the adjudication of the application may be noted at the outset.
3. The plaintiff claims to be in the business of construction, supply
of man power, trading of materials and hiring of equipments etc,
having its corporate office at UGF- 67, World Trade Center, Babur
Road, New Delhi. Based on the work order issued by defendant no.2

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 291/2022 Page 1 of 10
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:14.08.2023
15:21:38
 on 15.06.2018, the plaintiff supplied man power to defendants for
construction work at the head office of Hyundai Motors India,
Gurugram, Haryana.
4. It is the plaintiff‟s case that despite availing the services of man
power supplied by it, the defendant no.2 failed to make payments and
even the cheques issued by defendant no.2 towards part of the said
payment were dishonoured. However, as despite the plaintiff‟s
repeated requests, no payments were made by the defendants and
consequently on 03.10.2019, the parties had a meeting at Hyundai
Motors‟ office at Jasola, New Delhi where the defendants agreed to
pay a sum of Rs 7,67,30,826/- towards full and final settlement of its
dues. The agreement was duly recorded in writing and a „Payment
Certificate‟ dated 03.10.2019 to this effect was issued by the
defendants and the same was counter signed by the plaintiff. Pursuant
thereto, the defendant no.1 issued two cheques towards part payment.
The plaintiff deposited these two cheques in its bank account, with the
Axis Bank, Sector 24, Rohini, New Delhi, but again one of the
cheques got dishonoured. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred a
complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the
Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, District- North West
Delhi, which complaint is still pending.
5. It is in these circumstances that the present suit seeking recovery
of a sum of Rs 7,05,92,360/- along with interest from the defendants
has been filed. It may be noted at this stage itself, that the right of the
defendants to file their written statement already stands closed and
therefore vide this order, only the application under Order VII Rule 11,

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 291/2022 Page 2 of 10
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:14.08.2023
15:21:38
 CPC filed by the defendant No.1 is being decided.
6. In support of the application, the only ground urged by the
learned counsel for the defendant no.1 is that this Court does not have
the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and
therefore the plaint ought to be returned for being filed before an
appropriate forum. She submits that neither the plaintiff nor the
defendants have their office in Delhi and the agreement based on
which the claim for recovery has been made by the plaintiff was also
entered into between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 at Chennai.
Furthermore the man power was admittedly provided at the
headquarters of Hyundai Motors Gurugram. She further submits that
the plaintiff‟s plea that since the cheques were presented by the
plaintiff with its bank in Delhi, and therefore, a part of the cause of
action has arisen in Delhi is wholly misconceived. In support of his
plea, she relies on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court
in M/S Mountain Mist Agro India (Pvt) Ltd & Anr. Vs. Mr S.
Subramaniyam 2008 SCC OnLine Del 39.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that
contrary to the stand of the defendant no.1, the plaintiff has its
corporate office in Delhi, and submits that the plaintiff in para 1, 10,
14 & 21 of the plaint has specifically pleaded that it was operating
from its office in Delhi where it received the cheques which were
deposited with its bank in Delhi, and therefore a part of the cause of
action had arisen in Delhi. Furthermore, the plaintiff has also
specifically averred that the defendants had admitted their liability to
pay a sum of Rs. 7,05,92,360/- to the plaintiff vide Payment

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 291/2022 Page 3 of 10
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:14.08.2023
15:21:38
 Certificate dated 03.10.2019 which was also executed at Delhi.
8. He further submits that the plaintiff‟s bank through which it has
been conducting its business is also situated in Delhi, and it is in this
bank account that the cheques towards the part payments were
deposited by the plaintiff. He therefore contends that in the light of
these specific averments made in the plaint, it cannot be said that the
suit is liable to be rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction. In
support of his plea, he seeks to place reliance on the decisions of this
Court in Satyapal vs. Slick Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. in
RSA No. 40/2013, and in M/S. Auto Movers vs. Luminous Power
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in CM (M) 604/2020.
9. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties, I may refer to the scope of Order VII Rule 11,
CPC, as elucidated by the Apex Court in paras 7 & 7.1 of its recent
decision in Sri Biswanath Banik & Anr vs. Sulanga Bose & Ors.
(2022) 7 SCC 731. The same reads as under:

“7. Now, so far as the issue whether the suit can be

said to be barred by limitation or not, at this stage,
what is required to be considered is the averments in
the plaint. Only in a case where on the face of it, it is
seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and
then only a plaint can be rejected under Order 7
Rule 11(d)CPC on the ground of limitation. At this
stage what is required to be considered is the
averments in the plaint. For the aforesaid purpose,
the Court has to consider and read the averments in
the plaint as a whole. As observed and held by this
Court in Ram Prakash Gupta [Ram Prakash Gupta
v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, (2007) 10 SCC 59] ,

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 291/2022 Page 4 of 10
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:14.08.2023
15:21:38
 rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d)CPC
by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring
the other relevant parts of the plaint is
impermissible. In the said decision, in para 21, it is
observed and held as under: (SCC p. 68)

“21. As observed earlier, before passing an

order in an application filed for rejection of the
plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), it is but
proper to verify the entire plaint averments.
The abovementioned materials clearly show
that the decree passed in Suit No. 183 of 1974
came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in the
year 1986, when Suit No. 424 of 1989 titled
Assema Architect v. Ram Prakash was filed in
which a copy of the earlier decree was placed
on record and thereafter he took steps at the
earliest and filed the suit for declaration and in
the alternative for possession. It is not in
dispute that as per Article 59 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, a suit ought to have been filed within
a period of three years from the date of the
knowledge. The knowledge mentioned in the
plaint cannot be termed as inadequate and
incomplete as observed [Ram Prakash Gupta v.
Rajiv Kumar Gupta, 2006 SCC OnLine Del
488] by the High Court. While deciding the
application under Order 7 Rule 11, few lines or
passages should not be read in isolation and
the pleadings have to be read as a whole to
ascertain its true import. We are of the view
that both the trial court as well as the High
Court failed to advert to the relevant averments
as stated in the plaint.”

7.1. From the aforesaid decision and even otherwise

as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, while
considering an application under Order 7 Rule

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 291/2022 Page 5 of 10
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:14.08.2023
15:21:38
 11CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint
averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading
only few lines/passages and ignoring the other
relevant parts of the plaint.”

10. It is thus evident that while dealing with an application under

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court must read the plaint as a whole,
and that such an application must be decided only on the basis of the
averments made in the plaint. In order to appreciate the rival pleas of
the parties, it would therefore be apposite to refer to the averments
made in paras 1,10, 14 and 21 of the plaint so as to determine as to
whether it can be said at this stage that this Court lacks territorial
jurisdiction. The same read as under:
1. That the Plaintiff is a registered Partnership Firm
having its corporate office at UGF-67, World Trade
Center, Babar Road, New Delhi-110 001. That the
present suit is being filed by the Plaintiff through its
partner namely Sh. Tahir Ali Khan, who is duly
authorized vide a Power of Attorney dated January 31,
2022. Original Power of Attorney dated 31.01.2022 is
present in the list of documents.
***
10. That it was only then that the Plaintiff, through
its partners, made a visit to the Hyundai Motors'
India's office at Jasola, New Delhi/Head Office of
Defendant No. 1 to get its rightful dues. In the meeting
held at Jasola Office, New Delhi, both the defendants
participated. It was decided there that although the
Plaintiff had provided services worth Rs.
8,96,98,009/-, an amount of Rs. 7,67,30,826/- only
will be paid to the Plaintiff(Rupees Seven Crores Sixty
Seven Lakh Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred and
Twenty Six Only). It was further decided between all

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 291/2022 Page 6 of 10
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:14.08.2023
15:21:38
 three i.e. Plaintiff and both the Defendants herein that
the above stated amount will be paid by the Defendant
No. 1 instead of Defendant No. 2. All three of them
duly acknowledged the amount of 7,67,30,826 and put
their signatures on a paper which is described in
business parlance as "payment certificate" dated
03.10.2019. It is respectfully submitted that the
Defendants admitted their liability in the meeting held
at Jasola Office in New Delhi. Further, on 04.10.2019
the Defendant No. 2 also wrote an email to the
Plaintiff, keeping Defendant No. 1 in loop, reducing
into writing the fact that the Defendant No. 1 will
make the payment to the Plaintiff instead of Defendant
No. 2. Copies of the payment certificate dated
03.10.2019 and email dated 04.10.2019 are present in
the list of documents.
***
14. That on 30.11.2019 the Plaintiff deposited the
cheque bearing no. 195476 in his account bearing no.
919030058836020 with Axis Bank, Sector-24 branch,
Rohini, Delhi. The same was encashed but cheque
bearing no. 195478 when was presented, in the same
account with the same branch i.e. Axis Bank, Sector-
24, Rohini, New Delhi, got dishonoured for the reason
payment stopped by drawer. Copy of the return memo
dated 03.01.2020 are present in the list of documents.
***
21. That the Hon'ble Court has the necessary
pecuniary jurisdiction as the recovery amount is
greater than the Specified Value. It also has the
necessary territorial jurisdiction as the
aforementioned bank account, as mentioned in Para
14 of the plaint, is maintained by the Plaintiff for the
work being done at the impugned site only. The
Plaintiff uses that account for releasing daily
wages/salaries of the workmen engaged at the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 291/2022 Page 7 of 10
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:14.08.2023
15:21:38
 impugned site. The Plaintiff has also received the part
payment in this account only and the other cheque
bearing no.195478 was also presented at the branch
in Rohini, Delhi for being deposited in the same afore
mentioned account. It is also respectfully submitted
that the above mentioned payment certificate, wherein
the Defendants acknowledged their final liability, was
also prepared in the meeting held at Jasola/Okhla
Office of Hyundai Motors' India. The Plaintiff also
has a branch office at the address mentioned in Para
1 herein and used to manage the business at
impugned site from that office only.”

11. From the aforesaid averments made in the plaint, it is evident

that the plaintiff has specifically averred that it was conducting its
business from its corporate office in Delhi. The plaintiff has also
averred that the Payment Certificate dated 03.10.2019 whereby the
defendants had admitted their liability was also executed at the office
of Hyundai Motors in Jasola, New Delhi. No doubt the plaintiff would
have to prove these averments by leading evidence, but this is not the
stage to examine this aspect.
12. In the light of these specific averments in the plaint, and taking
into account the settled principle of law that for the purpose of
deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 only the averments
made in the plaint are required to be considered, it cannot be said at
this stage, that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try
the suit. A plaint has to be rejected only if as per the averments made
therein, it is barred by law, and therefore, as long as the averments
made in the plaint prima facie establish that this Court has territorial

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 291/2022 Page 8 of 10
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:14.08.2023
15:21:38
 jurisdiction, the suit cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC.
13. I have also considered the decision in M/S Mountain Mist Agro
India (Pvt) Ltd & Anr. Vs. Mr S. Subramaniyam., but find that in the
said case the Court was dealing with the situation where the plaintiff
did not have any office in Delhi and it was found that its address of
New Delhi was a “care of address”. Furthermore, there was nothing to
show that any part of the cause of action had arisen at New Delhi and
therefore the Court held that mere presentation of the cheques at Delhi
would not be sufficient to clothe this Court with territorial jurisdiction.
In the present case, it is an admitted position that the Payment
Certificate dated 03.10.2019, which forms an important ingredient of
the cause of action was issued at Delhi and therefore this decision
would be wholly inapplicable to the instant case.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the application,
which is, accordingly, dismissed.

CS(COMM) 291/2022
15. Since the right of the defendants to file written statement
already stands closed and the defendants have also not filed any
affidavit admitting or denying the plaintiff‟s documents, the said
documents are deemed to be admitted.
16. It is however made clear that though the right of the defendants
to file written statement stands closed, it will be still open for the
defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff‟s witnesses.
17. List before the learned Joint Registrar for recording of the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 291/2022 Page 9 of 10
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:14.08.2023
15:21:38
 plaintiff‟s evidence on 03.10.2023.

(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE

AUGUST 11, 2023

al

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 291/2022 Page 10 of 10
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:14.08.2023
15:21:38