Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENU KAUSHIK
DISTRICT JUDGE – 03, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURT
CS No. 337/25
Brij Raj Rai
....Plaintiff
Versus
Amit Singh
....Defendant
07.04.2026
ORDER
1 By way of this order I shall dispose of the application
moved u/O VII Rule 11 CPC by the defendant.
2 Arguments on the application already heard.
3 It is submitted by ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff in
the instant case has not come up with clean hands. It is further
stated that present suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.
10,60,000/- paid to the defendant over a certain period for the
purported sale which is factually incorrect. It is further stated that
the defendant never visited the house of the plaintiff at Delhi and
never made any promise for the sale of ancestral property.
4. It is further stated that plaintiff himself had presented as
CBI official having high connections and he grabbed handsome
amount from the villagers during the year 2016-17. It is further
stated that after the passing of sometime when villagers started
demanding their money back and threatened the plaintiff for
CS No. 337/25 Brij Raj Vs. Amit Singh Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
written complaint to the CBI department, the plaintiff under
panic contacted the defendants as they are from the same clan
and natives of the same village Khalwa for settlement. It is
further stated that settlement was reached wherein plaintiff
admitted to pay back money in installments over the period of
time through defendant as direct payments to the villagers would
lead to problems to the plaintiff as there could be a departmental
enquiry. It is further argued that money claimed by the plaintiff is
nothing but the said amount which was paid back to the villagers
by the plaintiff. It is further stated that plaintiff does not have any
cause of action against the defendants to file the present recovery
suit. It is further argued that present suit is also time barred as
well as this court does not have territorial jurisdiction as no
transaction between the parties has taken place in Delhi.
5. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of plaintiff that defendant
No.1 is a property dealer who resides with defendant No.2 and
defendant No.3 at district Siwan, Bihar. It is argued that plaintiff
and defendant No.1 are well known to each other and in January
2019, defendant No.1 visited the house of plaintiff at R.K. Puram
and defendant No.2 proposed the plaintiff to sell the plot in his
ancestral property at district Siwan, Bihar for a total
consideration of Rs. 10,60,000/-. It is further stated that the
plaintiff towards the consideration amount made various
payments to the defendant on various dates. However, upon
receiving all consideration price of the property, defendant No. 1,
2 and 3 refused to transfer the property in the name of plaintiff
and threatened the plaintiff to face dire consequences. It is further
stated that the various payments were made by the plaintiff since
CS No. 337/25 Brij Raj Vs. Amit Singh Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
January 2019 till January 2023, and thus the present suit is filed
within the period of limitation. It is further argued that cause of
action arose at Delhi as defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff
with the proposal of selling the plot at the house of plaintiff
situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
6. Submissions made on behalf of both the parties are taken
into consideration. Record perused.
7. It is well settled law that at the time of deciding the
application u/O VII Rule 11 of CPC, the court has to consider
only the plaint and not the defence taken by the defendant.
Considering the submissions made by the plaintiff in his plaint,
the court is of considered opinion that the issue with respect to
cause of action, period of limitation as well as territorial
jurisdiction needs evidence.
8. Accordingly, application moved u/O VII Rule 11 CPC by
the defendant is dismissed.
(Announced in the open Court
on 07th, April 2026)
(Ms. Meenu Kaushik)
DJ-03, New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts
New Delhi
CS No. 337/25 Brij Raj Vs. Amit Singh Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --