Disposed¶27

Krishan Kumar Mishra v. Annu Goyal

Delhi HC18 Jul 2025CM(M)/1266/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; CM(M) 1266/2025; Krishan Kumar Mishra v. Annu Goyal; Justice Manoj Jain; 18 July 2025; suit for possession and arrears of rents/mesne profits; Order XVA CPC order in abeyance; application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Trial Court jurisdiction questioned; commercial dispute; written statement deferred; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of: Trial Court to adjudicate defendant's Order VII Rule 11 CPC application on next date of hearing as expeditiously as possible; Order XVA CPC order to remain in abeyance till adjudication. ¶27

Krishan Kumar Mishra Vs Annu Goyal — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Adjudication of the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the learned Trial Court has no jurisdiction as the suit involves a commercial dispute (deferred to 04.09.2025). +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the petition with a request to the learned Trial Court to take up the defendant's Order VII Rule 11 CPC application on the next date of hearing and to make best endeavour to decide it as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Till adjudication of the defendant's Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, the order passed by the learned Trial Court under Order XVA CPC shall remain in abeyance.

¶22

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it has made no observation with respect to the averments made by the defendants in their Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, leaving consideration entirely to the learned Trial Court without being influenced by this order.ratio¶23
The pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J., oral), 18.07.2025 - Krishan Kumar Mishra (petitioner, defending a suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rents/mesne profits) v. Annu Goyal (respondent), CM(M) 1266/2025. On 25.04.2025 the learned Trial Court, having orally established that the defendant admitted rent of Rs.1.3 lacs per month, passed an order under Order XVA CPC; the defendant thereafter filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC pleading that the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction as the suit involved a commercial dispute, which application stood deferred to 04.09.2025 alongwith a direction to comply with the Order XVA CPC order. Disposing of the petition, this Court requested the Trial Court to take up the Order VII Rule 11 CPC application on the next date of hearing and decide it as expeditiously as possible, and held that the Order XVA CPC order shall remain in abeyance till its adjudication, expressly clarifying that no observation was made on the averments in that application.

¶1

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

% Date of Decision: 18^th July, 2025

¶3

- CM(M) 1266/2025 & CM APPL. 42510-42511/2025 KRISHAN KUMAR MISHRA

¶4

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Rathi, Mr. Deepak K., Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Mr. Sanchit J. and Ms. Aakansha Solanki, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

ANNU GOYAL

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Ritik Sharma, Mr. Himanshu, Mr. Ghanshyam Dass Sharma, Mr. Suraj Kumar Jaiswal and Mr. Deepanshu, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶10

Petitioner is defending a suit which seeks possession and recovery of arrears of rents/ mesne profits.

¶11

According to defendant, when the defendant appeared before the learned Trial Court on 25.04.2025, he was, though, granted time to file written statement within 30 days, the Court made some oral inquiry from the defendant and since the defendant admitted the rate of rent to be Rs.1.3 lacs per month, learned Trial Court passed an order under Order XVA CPC, then and there.

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner herein, however, is little different.

¶13

4. It is submitted that immediately, thereafter, the defendant moved an

¶14

CM(M) 1266/2025 1

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 1.07.2025 14:31:33

¶16

application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC clearly mentioning therein that the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction as the suit was involving a commercial dispute.

¶17

However, the abovesaid application has, rather, been deferred for 04.09.2025 and there is direction to defendant to comply with the abovesaid order passed under Order XVA CPC.

¶18

When asked, Mr. Rathi learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, defendant would file written statement before the learned Trial Court.

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff appears on advance notice and submits that such application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has no substance.

¶20

However, at the same time, he, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, submits that he would not insist for compliance of order passed by the learned Trial Court passed under Order XVA CPC, till the abovesaid application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is adjudicated.

¶21

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with request to learned Trial Court to take up the abovesaid application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the next date of hearing and to make best endeavour to decide the same, as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

Till the adjudication of the abovesaid application, the order passed under Order XVA CPC shall remain in abeyance .

¶23

It is, however, clarified that this Court has not made any observation with respect to the averments made by the defendants in their application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and it will be entirely upto to the learned

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 1.07.2025 14:31:33

¶25

CM(M) 1266/2025 2

¶26

Trial Court to consider the abovesaid aspect, without being influenced by any of the observations appearing in this order.

¶27