Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS (COMM) 659/25
Gopal Chand Aggarwal vs. Neha Goel
19.02.2026
ORDER
1. By way of present order, I shall decide an
application dated 12.01.2026, as filed on behalf of
defendant/applicant under Order VII Rule 11 & 10 r/w
Section 20, 21 and 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint.
2. It is pertinent to note over here that arguments on
the present application were heard on 27.01.2026 while
undersigned was posted as District Judge (Commercial
Court)-08, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and matter
was fixed for pronouncement of order for today i.e.
19.02.2026. Pursuant to the transfer of undersigned, the
present case was notified for pronouncing order in
compliance of Order no.08/D-3/Gaz.IA/ DHC/2026 dated
06th February, 2026 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
3. Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Vinod
Kumar Verma, Ld. Counsel for applicant/defendant and by
Mr. Yashwant Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. I have
perused the record as well as reply filed on behalf of
plaintiff.
4. Ld. counsel for applicant/defendant argued that no
cause of action ever arose within the territorial jurisdiction
of this court, therefore, plaint is liable to be
rejected/returned to the plaintiff for filing before the court
having competent jurisdiction to try the present suit. It is
CS (COMM) 659/25 Gopal Chand Aggarwal vs. Neha Goel Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
submitted that admittedly the business address of the
defendant i.e. M/s Mangla Trading Co. is at 1st Floor, Plot
no.139, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi and the
invoices as relied upon by the plaintiff shows that goods
were received at the above mentioned address.
5. Ld. Counsel for defendant further argued that
plaintiff is having his bank account at Punjabi Bagh East,
New Delhi and the defendant made the part payment
through his bank situated at Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi. It is
submitted that as per averments made in the plaint, cause
of action, if any, arose within the jurisdiction of Rohini
Courts.
6. Ld. Counsel for applicant/defendant vehemently
contended that plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming
territorial jurisdiction on the basis of residential address of
the defendant by misrepresenting the parental house of
defendant as her residence. It is submitted that the said
address is neither present address nor the place of business
of defendant. It is thus submitted that the court of Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi has no territorial
jurisdiction to try the present suit and therefore, same is
liable to be rejected/returned.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that the
residential address of the defendant as mentioned in the
plaint was disclosed by the defendant herself in criminal
proceedings u/s 138 NI Act initiated by the plaintiff. It is
submitted that the defendant and her husband have huge
liability to pay to their creditors and just to avoid their
CS (COMM) 659/25 Gopal Chand Aggarwal vs. Neha Goel Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
liability, they are using several addresses to avoid the
process of law.
8. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further argued that as per
Section 20 (a) CPC, suit for recovery of outstanding dues
can be filed where the defendant resides or works for gain.
It is submitted that admittedly defendant is residing at H.
no.111, Vivekanand Puri, Delhi, which address she has
disclosed while furnishing bail bond before the court of
Ld. Magistrate and therefore, this court has territorial
jurisdiction to try the present suit. It is submitted that issue
of territorial jurisdiction and cause of action is a mixed
question of law and fact and same cannot be adjudicated
summarily.
9. In brief, facts are that plaintiff is a proprietor of M/s
D.N. Footwears and engaged in the business of
manufacturing, supplying different types of footwears. The
defendant represented herself as proprietor of Mangla
Trading Co. and alongwith her husband approached the
plaintiff for supply of goods. The plaintiff on the assurance
of defendant, supplied goods with various invoices from
dated 06.12.2022 to 30.01.2023 for total amount of
Rs.8,77,112.16. The plaintiff maintained a ledger account
for the business transaction between the plaintiff and
defendant and as per which, there is a debit balance of
Rs.4,57,112/- as on 31.08.2023, which the defendant failed
to pay to the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendant in
discharge of her part liability issued a cheque no.000024
dated 12.05.2023 for Rs.1,00,000/-, which was got
CS (COMM) 659/25 Gopal Chand Aggarwal vs. Neha Goel Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
dishonoured on presentation with remarks “Funds
Insufficient” vide memo dated 10.08.2023. Plaintiff also
sent a legal notice dated 05.09.2023 to the defendant, but
the defendant despite receipt of same, did not comply with
it. Hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs.5,48,534/- is
filed.
10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as “H. S.
Deekshit & Anr. Vs. M/s Metropoli Overseas Limited &
Ors., 2022 Livelaw (SC) 703 held as under and I quote:-
“It is well-settled that while considering an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the
plaint alone are to be examined and no other extraneous
factor can be taken into consideration…”
11. Plaintiff has averred in para no.11 of the plaint that
the defendant presently resides at H. no.111, Viveknand
Puri, Delhi and therefore, this court has territorial
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. As per
plaintiff, the abovementioned address was disclosed by the
defendant herself in a criminal proceedings initiated u/s
138 NI Act. The plea of Ld. Counsel for applicant/
defendant is that the abovesaid address i.e. H. No.111,
Vivekanand Puri, Delhi is parental house of the defendant
and same is neither the present residence nor the business
place of defendant, which fact is well within the
knowledge of plaintiff being close relative. The fact that
the defendant herself disclosed her present address as H.
No.111, Vivekanand Puri, Delhi or that she is not residing
at the said address can be decided by leading evidence of
the respective parties. Accordingly, by leaving the issue of
territorial jurisdiction open, to be decided after leading
CS (COMM) 659/25 Gopal Chand Aggarwal vs. Neha Goel Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
evidence by the respective parties, at this stage, the present
application as filed on behalf of defendant stands disposed
off.
(Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-08
RACC, New Delhi
19.02.2026
CS (COMM) 659/25 Gopal Chand Aggarwal vs. Neha Goel Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --