Disposed¶21

Neeti Malhotra & Anr. v. Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC16 May 2025CM(M)/915/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC, CM(M) 915/2025, Neeti Malhotra & Anr. v. Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Manoj Jain J., 16.05.2025: Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejection-of-suit application by defendants in commercial suit to be taken up expeditiously before final arguments (fixed 30.07.2025); evidence before Local Commissioner deferred; parties to appear 21.05.2025; no view expressed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition and pending applications disposed of: Trial Court requested to take up the defendants' Order VII Rule 11 CPC application as expeditiously as possible; evidence recording before the Local Commissioner deferred till its disposal; parties directed to appear before the Trial Court on 21.05.2025 for fixing a date for hearing arguments in the application; no observation made on the merits of the application. ¶21

Neeti Malhotra & Anr. Vs Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court should be directed to take up and decide the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (seeking rejection of the suit) before final arguments, rather than at the time of final arguments, and whether evidence recording should be deferred meanwhile.

¶19

Court's answer

The very purpose of filing an application seeking rejection of the suit would stand frustrated if the application is taken up by the Trial Court only at the time of final arguments.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with a request to the learned Trial Court to take up the Order VII Rule 11 CPC application as expeditiously as possible; recording of evidence before the Local Commissioner is deferred till disposal of that application; parties are to appear before the Trial Court on 21.05.2025, on which day the Trial Court will fix a date for hearing arguments in the application.

¶19

Key takeaways

This Court has expressly made no observation with respect to the merit of the application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil miscellaneous petition (CM(M) 915/2025), Neeti Malhotra & Anr. v. Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd., High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J.), oral judgment dated 16.05.2025. In a commercial suit instituted in 2024, issues were framed on 21.03.2025; thereafter the defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the suit, while evidence was being recorded before a Local Commissioner and final arguments stood fixed for 30.07.2025. Observing that the purpose of such an application would stand frustrated if taken up only at final arguments, the Court disposed of the petition with a request to the Trial Court to take up the Order VII Rule 11 application as expeditiously as possible, deferred evidence recording before the Local Commissioner till its disposal, and directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 21.05.2025 for fixation of a date for arguments. The Court expressly recorded no observation on the merits of the application.

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 16^th May, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 915/2025 & CM APPL. 30026-30027/2025 NEETI MALHOTRA & ANR.

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. N P Singh with Mr. Barun Dey, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

AAR PEE APARTMENTS PVT. LTD

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

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

¶11

The prayer in the present petition is, merely, limited to the effect that the learned Trial Court may be requested to consider the application moved by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶12

The suit in question is commercial in nature and the issues were framed on 21.03.2025.

¶13

After framing of issues, the defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the suit.

¶14

The evidence is presently being recorded before the learned Local Commissioner and the case is stated to be fixed for final arguments on 30.07.2025.

¶15

Undoubtedly, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been filed, very recently, but at the same time, it also needs to be noted that even

¶16

CM(M) 915/2025 1

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 7.05.2025 16:56:55

¶18

the suit was instituted in the year 2024 only.

¶19

Be that as it may, the very purpose of filing any such application, which seeks rejection of the suit, would stand frustrated if the application is, eventually, taken up by the learned Trial Court at the time of final arguments. 7. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff also appears on advance notice and leaves it to this Court to pass appropriate order in this regard. 8. Keeping in mind the overall fact of the case, the present petition is disposed of with request to learned Trial Court to take up the abovesaid application, as expeditiously as possible. The recording of evidence before the learned Local Commissioner is, accordingly, directed to be deferred till the disposal of the abovesaid application and the parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 21.05.2025 and on that day, after ascertaining the convenience and availability of the counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court would give a date for hearing arguments in the abovesaid application.

¶20

It is, however, made clear that this Court has not made any observation with respect to the merit of the abovesaid application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶21

Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶22

Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶23

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶24

MAY 16, 2025/ sw/JS

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

CM(M) 915/2025 2

¶27

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 7.05.2025 16:56:55

Neeti Malhotra & Anr. v. Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeti Malhotra & Anr. v. Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Maheshwari Vs G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Shiv Construction Company and Anr. Vs Raj Kumar Sharma Since Deceased through Legal Heirs

Seema Rani Jain Vs M/S Canadian Speciality Vinyls

Zenith Vipers Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jasmeet Singh Marwah

M/S Mn Automobile Private Limited Vs Guriqbal Singh & Anr.

K. L. Manhas Vs M/S Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Sanjay Goel Vs Sag Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Lata Yadav Vs Shivakriti Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Vishal Maheshwari Vs G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Shiv Construction Company and Anr. Vs Raj Kumar Sharma Since Deceased through Legal Heirs

Seema Rani Jain Vs M/S Canadian Speciality Vinyls

Arbro Pharmaceuticals P Ltd. Vs Rakesh Dham and Ors.

Rajeev Sehgal Vs Ved Prakash

Kamlesh Dhingra through Lr Arun Khanna Vs Din Dayal and Ors.