Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page No.1 of 6
22 CS SCJ 1442/25
RAKESH JAIN Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA MISHRA
06.12.2025
Present: Sh. Chirag Jain, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff through VC.
Sh. Deepak Mishra, Ld. Counsel for defendant with defendant.
This is a summary suit.
Matter is at the stage of orders on the application under Order 7
Rule 10 r/w Section 20 & 21 of the C.P.C.
Written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 22.11.2025
qua the application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 r/w Section 20 & 21 of
the C.P.C. Same is taken on record. Copy already supplied.
An application for leave to file appearance under Order 37 Rule 3
C.P.C. alongwith condonation of delay under Rule 3 (7) r/w Section 151 C.P.C.
has been filed on behalf of the defendant on 19.11.2025. Same is taken on record.
Extra copy is taken on record and be released to the opposite party as per rules.
Reply be filed on the NDOH. Advance copy of the same be supplied to the opposite
party atleast a week prior to NDOH.
Reply not filed by the plaintiff to the application seeking leave to
defend filed on behalf of the defendant under Order 37 Rule 3(5) r/w Section 151
C.P.C. Same be filed on the NDOH. Advance copy of the same be supplied to the
opposite party atleast a week prior to NDOH.
Put up for Orders on the application under Order 7 Rule 10 r/w
Section 20 & 21 of the C.P.C. at 04:00 PM today.
(Aakash Sharma)
Civil Judge-02 (Central), Delhi
06.12.2025
-- 1 of 6 --
Page No.2 of 6
At: 04:00 PM
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the application under Order 7 Rule
10 r/w Section 20 & 21 C.P.C. filed on behalf of the defendant. Arguments have
already been heard previously on 10.11.2025.
2. By way of the present application under Order 7 Rule 10 r/w
Section 20 & 21 C.P.C. filed on behalf of the defendant, defendant is seeking
return of plaint. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that the plaintiff has
instituted the present summary suit under Order 37 C.P.C. before this Court. That
this Hon’ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present
suit, as per the provisions of Section 20 CPC. That neither the defendant resides
nor carries on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, nor
has any part of the cause of action arisen within its jurisdiction because drawee
bank is at Badarpur, cheque has been given at Badarpur in lieu of business
transaction like previous transactions which is reflected in the bank statement of
plaintiff. That in
Mountain Mist Agro India (Pvt.) Ltd. And ... Vs Mr.
S.Subramaniyam on 24October 2007 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is decided
that in civil suit, it is of importance only the fact of presentment for payment and
that has to be to the drawee bank. That in present suit which is Canara Bank at
Badarpur, therefore no cause of action at Sadar Bazar. This material fact that
plaintiff maintains his bank account at Sadar Bazar Delhi, renders the case of the
plaintiff out of territorial jurisdiction. That the plaint is liable to be rejected under
Order7 Rule 10 C.P.C. for lacuna of territorial jurisdiction. That the plaint as filed
by the plaintiff is self-contradictory and suffers from inherent inconsistencies.
That the bank statement of the plaintiff itself reflects that on 07.11.2024, the
-- 2 of 6 --
Page No.3 of 6
cheque bearing the amount of Rs.1,08,992/- issued by the defendant was returned
with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. However, in para no.6 of the plaint, the
plaintiff has averred that he advanced a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the defendant on
08.11.2024 i.e. immediately on the next day of dishonour of the aforesaid cheque.
That the said pleading is wholly improbable and contrary to normal human
conduct, for once the plaintiff had knowledge that the defendant’s cheque was
dishonoured for want of sufficient balance, no prudent person would advance a
loan on the very next day. That the said transaction of Rs.1,08,992/- was
admittedly a business dealing between the parties, which has already been settled
mutually. Thus, the subsequent plea in para no.6 of the plaint that on 08.11.2024
i.e. immediately after dishonour of the cheque, the plaintiff advanced a loan sum
of Rs.80,000/- in cash to the defendant is wholly false, fabricated, and
contradictory to the plaintiff’s own story as well as to the conduct of a prudent
man. That such material inconsistency renders the pleadings of the plaintiff
unreliable and unworthy of credit. That the plaint is liable to be rejected as not
disclosing a genuine cause of action, and the claim of the plaintiff is nothing but a
concocted attempt to create a false liability against the defendant. That this
material contradiction of the plaint renders the case of the plaintiff false,
concocted, and unworthy of reliance. The plaint, therefore, deserves to be
rejected under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. for lacuna of jurisdiction. That this Hon’ble
Court is not competent to try the present suit and the plaint is liable to be returned
under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. for presentation before the court of competent
territorial jurisdiction. That this objection regarding territorial jurisdiction is
being raised at the earliest possible stage before submission of the written
statement, in compliance with Section 21 C.P.C. It is prayed that the plaint of the
plaintiff be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. for presentation before the
-- 3 of 6 --
Page No.4 of 6
court of competent territorial jurisdiction.
3. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff did not wish to file reply and argued
the same on merits. It has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that
part cause of action as per Section 20(c) C.P.C. arose within the territorial
jurisdiction of Delhi and therefore this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the
present suit. That the loan was granted to the defendant at the address of the
plaintiff i.e. Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006. That therefore, the abovesaid application
of the defendant is liable to be dismissed. That the defendant’s contention that this
Court lacks jurisdiction is untenable and contrary to the facts and law. It is prayed
that the application be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon
judgment in
M/s Auto Movers Vs. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt Ltd. CM
(M) 604/2020 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
4. I have carefully perused the application, case file and heard the
arguments.
5. Perusal of the plaint reflects that plaintiff has claimed territorial
jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of granting of loan to the defendant on the
ground that defendant collected the said loan amount from the plaintiff at Sadar
Bazar, Delhi-110006 and that the repayment was to be made and received at the
plaintiff’s location at Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 which area lies within territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. It is settled as per Section 20(c) of C.P.C. that suit may
be instituted where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. From the plaint,
it is clear that part cause of action has arisen at Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 where
the defendant was granted the loan amount from the plaintiff, which area lies
-- 4 of 6 --
Page No.5 of 6
within territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
6. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Satyapal
Vs. Slick Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2014 Delhi 115, it has been
observed in para no.22 that:-
“It is a well established principle of law that where, under a
contract no place of payment is specified, the debtor must seek his creditor and
therefore a suit for recovery is maintainable at the place where the creditor
resides or works for gain, because a part of the cause of action arises at that place
also with the contemplation of section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
Whereas in the present case, the plaintiff has claimed territorial
jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of granting of loan to the defendant on the
ground that defendant collected the said loan amount from the plaintiff at Sadar
Bazar, Delhi-110006 and that the repayment was to be made and received at the
plaintiff’s location at Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 which area lies within territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. Prima facie in these circumstances, part cause of action
would arise within territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the Sadar Bazar area is
within territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
7. As far as the contention of the defendant is concerned that the bank
statement of the plaintiff reflects that on 07.11.2024, the cheque bearing the
amount of Rs.1,08,992/- issued by the defendant was returned with the remarks
“Insufficient Funds” and however, in para no.6 of the plaint, the plaintiff has
averred that he advanced a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the defendant on 08.11.2024 i.e.
immediately on the next day of dishonour of the aforesaid cheque and that the
said pleading is improbable and contrary to normal human conduct as no prudent
-- 5 of 6 --
Page No.6 of 6
person would advance a loan on the very next day of dishonour of cheque. In
view of this Court, this contention of the defendant has to be tested on the anvil
of evidence during trial and cannot be the basis for rejection or return of plaint.
8. Hence, no ground is made out for return of the plaint under Order 7
Rule 10 r/w Section 20 & 21 C.P.C. Accordingly, the present application under
Order 7 Rule 10 r/w Section 20 & 21 C.P.C. filed on behalf of defendant is hereby
dismissed and disposed off.
9. Put up for further proceedings on 31.01.2026.
(Aakash Sharma)
Civil Judge-02 (Central), Delhi
06.12.2025
-- 6 of 6 --