Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 3 CS SCJ 543/23
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ARUN
KAUSHIK
29.07.2024
Present: Sh. Subhash Singh, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. S.K. Sailesh, Ld. counsel for defendant
alongwith defendant.
Replication alongwith reply to application U/O 7
Rule 11 CPC and another application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC r/w
Section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Copy
supplied.
Arguments on the application U/O 7 Rule 11 CPC
heard on behalf of the parties. Record perused.
It is argued on behalf of the defendant that the
present suit lacks any cause of action. It is stated that the
defendant had applied for claim of his accidental vehicle and
after filing of ST-Report by surveyor Mr. Manish Batra, the claim
amount of Rs.3800/- had been received by the defendant. It is
further stated that the plaintiff has already issued a no objection
certificate to the defendant. It was argued that the recovery
amount was transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant without
the desire or demand of the defendant and the plaintiff is now
seeking illegal recovery of money. It was further argued that the
details of survey fees placed by the plaintiff is forged and
fabricated. It was prayed that the plaint be rejected.
The application is opposed on behalf of the plaintiff.
It is stated that the plaintiff had wrongfully transferred amount in
the account of the defendant and the defendant has
misappropriated that amount and has been unjustly enriched. It
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
was prayed that the application be dismissed.
It is trite law that for deciding an application U/O 7
Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint needs to be considered and defense
of the defendant cannot be gone into.
The case of the plaintiff is that due to an error, fees
payable to its surveyor Sh. Manish Batra was credited in the
account of the defendant and the defendant has withdrawn such
amount thereby misappropriating the same and has been unjustly
enriched.
In view of above averments in the plaint, it is clear
that the plaintiff has a cause of action to maintain the present suit.
The defense of the defendant cannot be gone into at this stage
and even otherwise, the contention on behalf of the defendant
that the details of survey fees placed by the plaintiff is forged and
fabricated is a matter of trial and cannot be decided at this stage.
In view of the above observation, application U/O 7
Rule 11 CPC moved on behalf of the defendant is dismissed.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant seeks time to file
reply to the application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Considered.
Let reply to the application, if any, be filed on or
before the NDOH alongwith an advance copy to the opposite
side.
Now to come up on 07.10.2024.
(KAPIL GUPTA)
Civil Judge-06 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi/29.07.2024
-- 2 of 2 --