Final Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ No. 1274/23 Sunil Gulati Vs. Mukul pg. no.1/6
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KHATRI, CIVIL JUDGE-06,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CSSCJ No. 1277/2023
SUNIL GULATI …...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUKUL ....DEFENDANT
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/O VII RULE 11 CPC
1. This order shall dispose off the application under Order
VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of defendant
seeking rejection of the plaint filed by the plaintiff. Reply to the
application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Despite multiple
opportunities, arguments not advanced by the plaintiff therefore, the
present application is decided on the basis of material available on
record and arguments advanced on behalf of the defendant.
Submissions were heard. Record has been perused.
2. It is stated on behalf of defendant that the present suit is
not maintainable due to the following reasons:
(i) That plaintiff has submitted that suit property exists in
the name of M/s Alag Intco Hotels Pvt. Ltd. However, the suit has
been filed in the personal capacity by plaintiff. The company being
separate legal entity can only file the suit and therefore, it is not
maintainable.
-- 1 of 6 --
CS SCJ No. 1274/23 Sunil Gulati Vs. Mukul pg. no.2/6
(ii) That the present suit is not maintainable as the same
has been filed by the plaintiff without any authorization letter from
M/s Alag Intco Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. Neither the board resolution nor
any minutes of meeting has been filed by the plaintiff. Therefore,
plaintiff has no locus to file the present suit.
(iii) That the present suit is liable to be dismissed due to
non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. The plaintiff has failed to
implead Sh. Santosh Cheetal, Director of M/s Alag Intco Hotels Pvt.
Ltd. as party in the present suit. Therefore, it is not maintainable.
(iv) That the present suit is liable to be dismissed as both
the Directors of M/s Alag Intco Hotels Pvt. Ltd. i.e. plaintiff and Sh.
Santosh Cheetal are litigating with each other before National
Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Plaintiff has himself admitted in
para no.4 of the plaint that the litigation is going on between him
and other Director Sh. Santosh Cheetal before NCLT.
(v) That the present suit is not maintainable in view of
Section 430 of Companies Act, 2013 which barres jurisdiction of
Civil Court in respect of any suit or proceeding which the tribunal is
empower to determine. The suit property is stated to be in the name
of the companies and as per Section 368 of the Companies Act, will
vest under the Companies Act.
(vi) Lastly, it is submitted that the present suit has been
filed for eviction of tenant. However, there is no relationship of
landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. There is no
rent agreement which is executed between the parties. Plaintiff has
also failed to file any other document which shows the landlord
tenant relationship between the parties.
-- 2 of 6 --
CS SCJ No. 1274/23 Sunil Gulati Vs. Mukul pg. no.3/6
3. Per contra, reply has been filed on behalf of the
plaintiff wherein every averment made by the defendant in his
application is denied. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the present
application is false, frivolous and baseless and is liable to be
dismissed with heavy cost. It is stated by the defendant that none of
the grounds envisaged U/O VII Rule 11 CPC are satisfied with
respect to the prayer asked by the defendant because the plaint
discloses a cause of action; it is not under valued; proper court fees
has been affixed; the plaint is properly stamped. It is submitted by
the plaintiff that suit property exists in the name of M/s Alag Intco
Hotels Pvt. Ltd. however, the suit has been filed in the personal
name of plaintiff. It is submitted that company M/s Alag Intco
Hotels Pvt. Ltd. is currently inactive as the Directors are involved in
litigation before the NCLT. The plaintiff has filed the present suit in
order to protect the misuse of Company’s property. It is further
submitted that NCLT has held that jurisdiction to grant relief of
recovery of rent from tenant and the eviction of tenant from the
property of company lies in the exclusive domain of the civil court.
Lastly, it is submitted that the present application be dismissed with
heavy cost as it is devoid of any merits.
4. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for eviction of
the defendant from the suit property on the ground that defendant
has illegally without any lease deed has occupied the property of
company M/s Alag Intco Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. It is the case of the
plaintiff that he is one of the Directors of M/s Alag Intco Hotels Pvt.
Ltd. and the suit property is owned by the company of the plaintiff.
-- 3 of 6 --
CS SCJ No. 1274/23 Sunil Gulati Vs. Mukul pg. no.4/6
It is stated by him that other Director of the company namely Sh.
Santosh Cheetan is enjoying a good rental income by way of
misusing the company’s property as he has rented the same in his
individual capacity to the defendant. The plaintiff approached the
defendant on several occasions and apprise him about illegal
occupancy and even sent a legal notice dated 12.04.2025. However,
the defendant failed to vacate the suit property. It is further
submitted that defendant is running a business in the said property.
Further, litigation is running between the plaintiff and Sh. Santosh
Cheetal before NCLT. It is stated by the plaintiff that no lease deed
has been executed between the company and the defendant by virtue
of which it could occupy and utilize the suit property.
5. It is settled law that for considering an application U/o
VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contentions raised in the plaint are to be
seen and the defence of defendant, if any, cannot be considered at
that stage. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as
Soumitra Kumar
Sen Vs. Shyamal Kumar Singh & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 644 has held
as follows:-
"9.
***
However, at this stage, as rightly pointed out by the High
Court, the defense in the written statement cannot be gone
into. One has to only look into the plaint for the purpose
of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. It
is possible that in a cleverly drafted plaint, the plaintiff
has not given the details about Suit No. 268 of 2008
which has been decided against him. He has totally
omitted to mention about Suit No. 103 of 1995, the
judgment wherein has attained finality. In that sense, the
plaintiff/respondent no. 1 may be guilty of suppression
and concealment, if the averments made by the appellant
-- 4 of 6 --
CS SCJ No. 1274/23 Sunil Gulati Vs. Mukul pg. no.5/6
are ultimately found to be correct. However, as per the
established principles of law, such a defense projected in
the written statement cannot be looked into while
deciding application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC."
Further, Order VII Rule 11 provides as follows:
11. Rejection of plaint.
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the
valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to
do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the
plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and
the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the
requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the
Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint
to be barred by any law:
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the
correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite
stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for
reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was
prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form
correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-
paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the
Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause
grave injustice to the plaintiff.
6. The contention of the defendant has already been
mentioned in detail in para 2 of above, the same are not reproduced
here for the sake of brevity. Order 7 Rule 11 (a) provides that the
plaint shall be rejected in case it does not disclose a cause of action.
The plaintiff has himself stated in his plaint that the suit property is
in the name of company namely M/s Alag Intco Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and
he is one of the directors of the aforesaid company. Therefore, it is
-- 5 of 6 --
CS SCJ No. 1274/23 Sunil Gulati Vs. Mukul pg. no.6/6
imperative on him to file the present suit after obtaining
authorization/authority letter from the company. Further, the
company has not been made a party. It is trite law that company has
a separate legal existence. Therefore, when the suit property belongs
to company, it is necessary that suit is instituted by the company
itself through its director or authorized person as provided in order
XXIX of the CPC, 1908. The plaintiff has alleged that the other
director of the company has rented the suit property to the
defendant, however plaintiff has also failed to implead him as a
party. Moreover, no rent agreement/ rent receipt or any other
document which shows the privity of contract between the plaintiff
and defendant or even M/s Alag Intco Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and
defendant has been placed on record. Therefore, merely on the basis
of self serving statement of the plaintiff it cannot be presumed that
the defendant is a tenant of the M/s Alag Intco Hotels Pvt. Ltd..
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely
concluded that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff
to evict the defendant from the suit property. Accordingly, the
present application is allowed and plaint is rejected U/O VII Rule 11
(a) of the CPC, 1908.
8. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
9. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the court
on 19.07.2025.
(Sunil Khatri)
Civil Judge-06/Central/
THC/19.07.2025
-- 6 of 6 --