Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 94/26 Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Mansi Page No. 1 of 4
Civ Suit 94/26
Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Mansi
23.04.2026
ORDER
1. Vide this order, maintainability of the present suit shall be
decided.
2. Arguments have been heard. Record, including the
comprehensive written submissions and citations filed, have been
perused.
3. At the outset, it is an admitted position that the plaint was
earlier filed before the Ld. ACJ, east, KKD Courts and vide order
dated 16.12.2025, the same was returned under Order VII Rule 10
CPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Instead of
availing the remedies available in law against the said order, the
plaintiff has chosen to file the present plaint again within the same
district, with the addition of a paragraph stating that the assurances
forming the basis of the transaction were given at the matrimonial
home falling in East district, thereby attempting to invoke
territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
4. This course of action, in the opinion of the Court, cannot
be permitted. Once a competent court has returned the plaint on
the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the plaintiff cannot,
by merely introducing an additional averment, re-institute the suit
before a court within the same territorial limits so as to overcome
the earlier finding. The present attempt, in substance, amounts to
-- 1 of 4 --
Civ Suit 94/26 Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Mansi Page No. 2 of 4
an endeavour to circumvent the earlier order and constitutes forum
shopping, which is impermissible.
5. Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered view that
the plaint, as framed, does not disclose a cause of action.
6. The brief facts of the case are that the parties were married
on 06.02.2024. It is alleged that shortly thereafter, the defendant
represented that financial assistance was required for facilitating
the career prospects of her brother in Canada, with an estimated
requirement of Rs. 20–25 lakhs. The plaintiff claims to have, out
of goodwill and in view of the nascent matrimonial relationship,
extended a sum of Rs. 1,22,011/- through UPI over a period of one
month, with an expectation that the same would be returned once
the financial condition of the defendant’s family improved.
7. Upon a careful perusal of the plaint, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the nature of the transaction, as pleaded,
does not disclose the existence of a legally enforceable contract.
The averments indicate that the payment was made in the backdrop
of a matrimonial relationship, founded on trust, affection and
social obligations, without any definite terms, timelines, or
enforceable promise. Such a payment, arising out of a domestic
relationship, does not appear to have been made with the intention
to create legal obligations. In this regard, reliance may be placed
on
Balfour v. Balfour 2 K. B. 571 (Court of Appeal 1919), wherein
it was held that certain forms of agreements do not reach the status
of a contract because the parties did not intend that they should be
attended by legal consequences.
-- 2 of 4 --
Civ Suit 94/26 Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Mansi Page No. 3 of 4
8. Further, as per the plaintiff’s own case, the alleged
understanding was that the amount would be returned “
once the
defendant’s family regained financial stability”. This renders the
alleged obligation contingent and uncertain. The subsequent
souring of their relations and deterioration of the matrimonial
relationship or initiation of legal proceedings between the parties
cannot, by itself, alter the nature of the transaction at its inception
and crystallize such an indefinite understanding into an
enforceable cause of action. Thus, the plaintiff has not been able
to disclose the existence of a cause of action in his favour.
9. Moreover, the reliance placed by the plaintiff on Sections
70 and 72 of the Indian Contract Act is misconceived and does not
advance the plaintiff’s case.
10. Section 70 embodies the principle of restitution in cases of
non-gratuitous acts, and its applicability is contingent upon the
satisfaction of three essential ingredients: (i) that a person lawfully
does something for another or delivers something to him; (ii) that
such act is not intended to be gratuitous; and (iii) that the other
person enjoys the benefit thereof. Clearly, these conditions are not
met in the present case.
11. The averments in the plaint themselves indicate that the
amount was advanced by the plaintiff in the backdrop of a
matrimonial relationship, described as a “goodwill contribution”
made upon emotional persuasion and in view of the nascent
marital bond. There is no pleading that the payment was made with
a clear expectation of legal recompense enforceable in law. On the
-- 3 of 4 --
Civ Suit 94/26 Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Mansi Page No. 4 of 4
contrary, the language employed reflects a voluntary act rooted
in personal relationship and mutual trust.
12. Equally, the reliance on Section 72, Indian Contract Act is
misplaced. Section 72 applies to situations where money is paid
by mistake or under coercion, giving rise to an obligation to restore
the same. The plaint does not contain any averment that the
payments were made under any mistake of fact or law, nor is there
any allegation of coercion. Thus, in the absence of pleadings
establishing mistake or coercion, the invocation of Section 72 is
wholly untenable.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, the plaint is rejected under
Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary
compliance.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
23.04.2026
-- 4 of 4 --