This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The said order was passed on an application moved by the appellant/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC). The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that the learned Single Judge fell into error as nothing happened in Delhi and no part of cause of action had arisen in Delhi and, therefore, this Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, yet the learned Single Judge rejected the application which was filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to paragraph 10 of the plaint in an attempt to show that there was a clear contradiction between what is stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint and paragraph 10 with regard to the accrual of the cause of action. It was contended that while on the one hand, the respondent claimed that the cause of action arose in February, 2012 when the alleged meeting had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant at Delhi, on the other hand in paragraph 10 of the plaint, it is stated that
