Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 19
CS SCJ No. 697/23
KANCHAN FASHION PVT LTD Vs. SANGEETA GULATI
27.01.2024
Present : Sh. Subhash Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
alongwith plaintiff.
Sh. Hardev Chadha, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
Matter is listed for arguments on application under Order
8 Rule 1 CPC.
In the application at hand, the applicant/defendant has
challenged the jurisdiction of this court and it is argued that the matter
ought to have been filed before the Commercial Court.
In the oral submissions made today, Ld. Counsel for the
defendant submits that he seeks condonation of delay in filing the WS,
as the defendants were guided by a belief that the matter has already
been settled, pursuant thereof sums of Rs.95,000/- and Rs.15,371/-
were deposited by the defendants in the account of the plaintiff,
subsequent to the commencement of the present suit, qua the
settlement.
No proof of payment has been placed on record, however,
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff admits receipt of Rs.95,000/- on
17.07.2023 and Rs.15,371/- on 31.03.2023
With respect to the application at hand, it is submitted by
the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the said application ought to be
dismissed, for there is no prayer for condonation of delay and even
otherwise on merits the said application is bad in law.
Page 1 of 2 (PTO)
-- 1 of 2 --
Submissions heard. Record perused.
Even though the application at hand is titled as an
application under Order 8 Rule 1, it does not disclose the prayer made
by the defendant. Rather, the said application seeks rejection of the
plaint on the ground that this court has no jurisidciton to try the present
matter and the present matter ought to be tried by Commercial Court.
On the point of jurisdiction, there are no merits in the
application and the submissions qua the jurisdiction are thus rejected.
Furthermore, it may added here that the application at
hand it is a classic case of bad drafting and bad pleadings, however, the
parties cannot be punished for inadvertence of the counsel. Keeping in
mind the fact that after filing of the present suit a sum of Rs.95,000/-
plus Rs.15,371/- has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, the
possibility of the defendant being misguided by the fact that the matter
has been settled, cannot be ruled out. The interest of justice demands
that the present application be allowed.
Allowed accordingly. Application at hand stands
disposed off. WS is already on record. The plaintiff has admitted that
the copy has already been supplied.
Be put up for filing of replication, if any/admission-denial
of documents/framing of issues on 01.05.2024.
Replication, if any, be filed 30 days before the next date of
hearing with advance copy to the opposite party.
(Harjeet Singh Jaspal)
SCJ-cum-RC: Central District:
27.01.2024
Page 2 of 2
-- 2 of 2 --