Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 21 Civ Suit 665/25
BHAVESH ANAND Vs. AMIT SATYARTHI
08.07.2026
Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the
defendant (through VC).
1. Arguments heard on the application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC.
2. Mr. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the defendant argues the
following, in support of his application:
2.1 The suit is misconceived, malafide and based on false
and frivolous allegations. The plaint does not disclose any
cause of action in favor of the plaintiff to institute the
present suit.
2.2 The plaintiff has approached this court with unclean
hands and has deliberately concealed material facts. No
documents has been placed on record to show that the
defendant ever requested the plaintiff for any loan. On the
contrary, the plaintiff had joined the defendant’s business
as a partner in September 2019, when the defendant had
commenced his drain contruction business.
2.3 The suit is barred by limitation as the payments
allegedly made by the defendant on 01.04.2023,
16.05.2023, 29.06.2023, 18.08.2023, 18.11.2023 and
02.02.2024 cannot be treated as part-payments towards
the alleged loan. These payments were, infact, made
towards the booking of flight tickets from Chennai to Delhi
Cont.
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
and, therefore, do not extend the period of limitation.
2.4 The plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute the
present suit. The plaintiff has relied upon the bank account
statement of one Ms. Aruna Anand, annexed at page 23 of
the paper book, without disclosing his relationship with her
or the basis on which he claims any right in respect of the
said account.
3. Mr. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, opposes the
application submitting the following:
3.1 While considering an application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC, the court is required to examine only the
averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied
upon by the plaintiff. The defence raised in the written
statement or in the application itself cannot be looked into
at this stage.
3.2 In paragraph 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has
specifically pleaded that the loan amounts were advanced
to the defendant from his personal bank account as well as
from a joint bank account. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, the
plaintiff has also disclosed the amounts re-paid by the
defendant on different dates towards partial discharge of
the loan liability.
3.3 The defendant’s pleas regarding the plaintiff’s
induction as a partner, nature of the payments and the
plaintiff’s entitlement to rely upon the joint bank account
are matters of defence which shall require evidence and
cannot be adjudicated in an application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC.
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
4. I have heard the submissions and perused the record
carefully. It is well settled principle of law that while
adjudicating an application for rejection of plaint under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC of the CPC, the court must confine
itself to the averments made in the plaint alone. Allegations
contained in the written statement or the application
seeking rejection of the plaint are not to be considered1.
5. A perusal of paragraph 5 of the plaint shows that the
plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the amounts in
question were advanced to the defendant as loans from his
personal bank account as well as from a joint bank
account. Further, in paragraph 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff
has furnished the particulars of the amounts received from
the defendant on different dates towards partial re-payment
of the loan liability. The averments, therefore, disclose a
cause of action for instituting the present suit.
6. The defendant’s contentions that—the plaintiff was
inducted as a partner in his business; that the payments
referred to in paragraph 6 of the plaint were made towards
booking of flight tickets from Chennai to Delhi and not
towards re-payment of the loan amount and; that the
plaintiff has no right to rely upon the joint bank account with
Ms. Aruna Anand, are all disputed questions of fact. Their
determination would require evidence and therefore,
cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
7. In view of the ongoing discussion, the application is
found to be devoid of merit and accordingly, stands
dismissed. The application is accordingly disposed off.
1 Ramisetty Venkatanna vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 SCC OnLine SC 521
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
8. From the pleadings of the parties and the material on
record, following issues are framed:
(a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum of
Rs.2,35,879/-? OPP
(b) If yes, then at what rate of interest? OPP
(c) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
(d) Relief.
9. Plaintiff is directed to file evidence by way of affidavit
in lieu of examination-in-chief with advance copy to other
side 15 days prior to the NDOH.
10. List the matter for PE on 13.08.2026.
(AYUSH SHARMA)
CIVIL JUDGE/EAST
KKD COURTS/08.07.2026
-- 4 of 4 --