Dismissed

Shree Balaji Traders and Ors. v. Vikas Wsp Limited and Anr.

Rajasthan HC19 Aug 2016CR/119/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected a civil revision challenging the dismissal of an application to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court held the trial court acted correctly as the plaint disclosed a cause of action within jurisdiction; the revision petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file fresh application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was not granted as no question arose; revision petition dismissed.

Shree Balaji Traders and Ors. Vs Vikas… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

CIVIL REVISION (CR) NO.119 OF 2016 SHREE BALAJI TRADERS & ORS. VS. VIKAS WSP LIMITED & ANR.

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

CIVIL REVISION (CR) NO.119 of 2016

¶5

SHREE BALAJI TRADERS & ORS. VS. VIKAS WSP LIMITED & ANR.

¶6

Date of Order :- 17.8.16.

¶7

HON'BLE MR.SANGEET LODHA,J.

¶8

Mr.H.R.Soni, for the petitioner.

¶9

This petition is directed against order dated 11.5.16 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No.2/15, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, stands rejected.

¶10

The relevant facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,65,71,045/- against the petitioner-defendant. As per the averments made in the plaint, the petitioner Company, which deals in Gwar Gum entered into a deal through broker with the

¶11

¶12

CIVIL REVISION (CR) NO.119 OF 2016

¶13

SHREE BALAJI TRADERS & ORS. VS. VIKAS WSP LIMITED & ANR.

¶14

defendants to purchase 20,000 bags of Gwar. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.5,40,00,000/was paid, however, the petitioner-defendant did not supply the goods.

¶15

The petitioner-defendant preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the order for the goods was placed through e-mail at Delhi. The agreement was also entered into at Delhi and the payment was also made in the bank account at Delhi and the defendants are residing and carrying on business at Delhi and therefore, even the part of the cause of action has not accrued within the jurisdiction of the Court at Sri Ganganagar.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the plaint as framed does not disclose that even part of the cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of the Court at Sri Ganganagar and therefore, the trial court has erred in

¶17

SHREE BALAJI TRADERS & ORS. VS. VIKAS WSP LIMITED & ANR.

¶18

¶19

CIVIL REVISION (CR) NO.119 OF 2016

¶20

rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Reiterating the contention raised before the trial court noticed hereinabove, learned counsel submitted that order impugned passed by the trial court is ex facie erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶21

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶22

It is settled law that while deciding an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, the court is not competent to go into correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the plaint. The plaint can only be rejected if from the statement in the plaint without any addition or subtraction, it appears to be barred by law.

¶23

A perusal of the plaint reveals that the petitioner has disclosed the accrual of cause of action within the jurisdiction of the court below stating that the

¶24

CIVIL REVISION (CR) NO.119 OF 2016 SHREE BALAJI TRADERS & ORS. VS. VIKAS WSP LIMITED & ANR.

¶25

¶26

agreement between the parties was entered into at Sri Ganganagar and the bill dated 3.1.12 sent by the petitioner-defendant was rejected by the plaintiff Company at Sri Ganganagar and the entire payment through RTGS was made by the plaintiff Company to the petitioner-defendant from Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner may take the pleas intended to be raised questioning the accrual of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Court at Sri Ganganagar but then, the pleas sought to be taken by the petitionerdefendant cannot be taken into consideration by the court below while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, seeking rejection of the plaint. Obviously, the contentious issue sought to be raised by the petitioner shall be determined by the trial court on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties after framing the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Suffice it to say that from perusal of the plaint, in no manner it could be inferred that no cause of

¶27

CIVIL REVISION (CR) NO.119 OF 2016

¶28

SHREE BALAJI TRADERS & ORS. VS. VIKAS WSP LIMITED & ANR.

¶29

¶30

action has accrued to the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of the Court at Sri Ganganagar and thus, the trial court has committed no error in rejecting the application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, preferred by the petitioner-defendant.

¶31

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-defendant may be given liberty to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 afresh on other available grounds. In the considered opinion of this court, if it is permissible under the law, nothing prevents the petitioner from making an application as desired and thus, the question of this court granting the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application, does not arise.

¶32

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶33

(SANGEET LODHA),J.

¶34

aditya

Shree Balaji Traders and Ors. v. Vikas Wsp Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Balaji Traders and Ors. v. Vikas Wsp Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bharat Explochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs None

M/S Navbharat Explochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs None

Dr. Ramswaroop Choudhary Vs Maharana Pratap Uni. of Ag. and Tec. and Ors.

Krishna Lal Sidana Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Swastik Trading Co. Vs Jasmit Singh Atwal

Mahendra Meghwal Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and Ors.