Ramavision Ltd. vs S. Trivender Singh

Mr. N. Paul Vasanthakumar, C.J. - This revision petition is filed to set aside the order dated 25.08.2009 passed by the Additional District

Judge, Srinagar, in the application filed under Order 7, Rule 10 and 11 CPC.

The suit was filed by the respondents for recovery of sum of Rs. 1.70 lakhs along with interest contending that the plaintiff is a businessman

dealing with the glass and other allied items having the business establishment at Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar, under the name and style of M/s

Trivender Singh. Defendant No. 1, petitioner herein, is a manufacturing company dealing with manufacture of glass tubes, picture tubes, electric

bulbs and other items with which the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 herein, has business contacts as distributors and agents for its products in the

Kashmir Valley.

The plaintiff was to deposit an amount of Rs. 1.70 lakhs as security in order to get dealership of the defendant company and for being its

distributor, he was further directed to deposit the said amount in the name of the company pursuant to which the said amount was deposited

through bank drafts in the name of defendant company through Punjab National Bank, Court Road, Srinagar, by demand drafts dated 29.08.2002

amounting Rs. 55000/-, 03.04.2003 amounting Rs. 40,000/-, 03.04.2003 amounting Rs. 40,000/- and 03.04.2003 amounting Rs. 35,000/-, total

Rs. 1.70 lakhs. After receiving the said amount by way of demand drafts, neither any dealership was issued to the plaintiff nor the amount was

returned in spite of approaching the defendant repeatedly. Accordingly, a notice was issued by registered post on 23.02.2006 seeking refund of

the amount and when the amount was not refunded, a suit was filed f or recovery of the same.

In the said suit, instead of filing written statement, defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 10 and 11 for rejection of the plaint.

The main ground raised in the application seeking rejection of the plaint was that the defendant No. 1 being a Delhi based company, the

Srinagar court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and further that no one has approached the plaintiff for dealership and deposition of the

money.

The trial court considered the application and rejected the same on the basis of the pleadings contained in the plaint.

The scope of rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 and 11 is very limited as the court has to see whether there are sufficient pleadings in

the plaint and not beyond that. The trial court dismissed the application as he found that there were sufficient pleadings in the plaint against which

this revision petition is filed.

I have perused the eider passed by the trial court as well as the pleadings contained in the plaint.

The dispute with regard to the dealership of the plaintiff with the defendant No. 1 is a question of fact and the demand draft having been taken

from Srinagar, the issue of territorial jurisdiction is prima-facie established.

The scope as to how the court can decide an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC came up for consideration before Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 3672 (Ramesh B. Desai & Ors v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors). Hon'ble the

Supreme Court held that the question of jurisdiction and cause of action had to be determined with reference to the allegations contained in the

statement of plaint. In the decision reported in (2004) 12 SCC 376 (Indian Mineral and Chemicals Co. & ors v. Deutsche Bank), in

paragraph 10 and 11 it was held that the assertions in a plaint must be assumed to be true for the purpose of determining whether leave is liable to

be revoked on the point of demurrer. In (2005) 7 SCC 510 (Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association),

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment has held thus:-

Clause (d) of Order 7, Rule 7 speaks of suit, as appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Disputed questions cannot

be decided at the time of considering an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 applies in those cases only

where the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law in force.

On the basis of the principle laid down in the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred above and on the fact that sufficient pleadings

are made by the plaintiffs in the suit, the merits of which can be determined only after trial of the suit, the application of the revision petitioner

seeking to reject the plaint filed under Order 7, Rule 10 and 11 , was rightly rejected.

In such circumstances, there is no ground to review the order of the court below. However, it is made clear that in spite of dismissal of this

revision petition, it is open to the 1st defendant, petitioner herein, to raise all his objections in the written statement to be filed and the merit of the

said contentions will be decided without reference to the order passed in this revision petition. No costs.