Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 179/26
CNR No. DLNE03-000297-2026
Shyam Sundar
Vs.
Rakesh Sharma
12.08.2026
Present: Sh. Nitesh Upadhyay, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Mohit Dwivedi, Ld. counsel for D-1 & D-2
alongwith D-1.
Arguments advanced at length from both sides on an
application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC.
Orders during course of the day.
AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC/ASCJ/G.JUDGE (N/E)
12.08.2026
At 12:46 PM.
Present: None.
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application u/o VII
Rule 11 CPC, filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 & 2.
2. It is stated in the application that plaintiff has filed the
present suit against defendants seeking recovery of alleged
amount on the basis of alleged investment scheme. It is further
stated that as per plaintiff's own pleadings, the plaintiff allegedly
invested money in alleged scheme commencing from October,
Civ Suit 179/26
	CNR No. DLNE03-000297-2026 Shyam Sundar Vs. Rakesh Sharma
	Page No. 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
2021. It is further stated that plaintiff himself filed the schedule
of alleged payments alongwith the plaint wherein the last alleged
payment has been shown on 22.03.2023. It is further stated that
plaintiff has further admitted through his own documents that
thereafter no amount was deposited. It is further stated that
present suit has admittedly been filed on 08.04.2026 i.e. beyond
the prescribed period of limitation. It is further stated that plaint
nowhere discloses any acknowledgment in writing executed by
any of the defendants within the meaning of Section 18 of
Limitation Act, 1963 nor any subsequent promise extending the
limitation period. It is further stated that plaintiff has vaguely
alleged that defendant nos. 1 & 2 introduced some investment
scheme wherein plaintiff was allegedly required to deposit
money on monthly basis, however plaint does not disclose any
date of agreement, written terms and conditions, any written
acknowledgment of liability by defendant nos. 1 & 2. It is further
stated that present suit is liable to be rejected u/o VII Rule 11
CPC.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is working as an
IT Manager in a Hotel. It is further stated that in October, 2021,
defendant nos. 1 & 2 approached plaintiff through his brother-in-
law for a scheme of higher returns and represented that
investments of rupees two lacs, rupees three lacs and rupees six
lacs would yield higher returns and upon assurance, plaintiff's
brother-in-law and plaintiff agreed and showed his interest in a
scheme of Rs. 3,00,000/-, wherein plaintiff required to invest less
Civ Suit 179/26
	CNR No. DLNE03-000297-2026 Shyam Sundar Vs. Rakesh Sharma
	Page No. 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
than Rs. 15,000/- per month for a period of 20 months and
plaintiff started depositing the amount from 16.10.2021 with
defendant nos. 1 & 2. It is further stated that in October, 2021,
plaintiff deposited Rs. 15,000/- in cash at defendant's shop and
continued to deposit the amount in cash as per directions of
defendants till 16.02.2022. It is further stated that defendant no. 3
i.e. employee of defendant assisted defendant nos. 1 & 2 in
collection of money and witnessed the transaction. It is further
stated that plaintiff made payments through online mode to
defendant. It is further stated that plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs.
2,40,490/- from October 2021 to March 2023. It is further stated
that in April, 2023 plaintiff requested repayment of the invested
amount from defendants upon which they requested time till July,
2023 and when plaintiff again inquired about repayment, they not
made any payment and delayed the same. It is further stated that
in February, 2024, when plaintiff asked for his amount, defendant
no. 1 transferred Rs. 2,000/- as interest on 04.02.2024 to bank
and plaintiff again received Rs. 2,000/- on 04.03.2024 as interest
to bank and thereafter, no payment has been made by defendants.
It is further stated that upon request made to defendants, they
threatened with dire consequences. It is further stated that
plaintiff sent legal notice dated 07.02.2026 to defendants.
4. Submissions have already been heard. File perused.
5. It is settled law that while considering an application under
Order VII Rule XI CPC and the prayer for rejection of the plaint,
Civ Suit 179/26
	CNR No. DLNE03-000297-2026 Shyam Sundar Vs. Rakesh Sharma
	Page No. 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
only averments of plaint are material and can be taken into
consideration and any evidence or averments made in the written
statement cannot be considered.
6. In
Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors.
(2020) 6 SCC 557 (Judgment dated 04.10.2019), a reference
judgment by a three-judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it
has been noted as follows:
“63. ……What is of significance under Order
VII Rule 11 is that from the averments of plaint
itself the suit is barred by any law and it would
include limitation also including bar created by
any other law for the time being in force. For the
rejection of plaint, averments made by the
defendant in the written statement or otherwise
cannot be seen, only the averments of the plaint
are material and can be taken into consideration
and no other evidence.”
7. In
Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. Versus Nasyam Jamal
Saheb & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 2023 (Judgment dated
28.04.2023) Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted as follows:
“7.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Nusli
Neville Wadia (supra) is concerned, again there
cannot be any dispute with respect to the
proposition of law laid down by this Court that
while deciding the application under Order VII
Rule XI, mainly the averments in the plaint only
are required to be considered and not the
averments in the written statement. ….”
8. Perusal of plaint shows that the plaintiff has specifically
averred regarding receiving of amount regarding the transactions
between plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff has also mentioned
the transaction ID of both the transactions in 2024 and the suit
Civ Suit 179/26
	CNR No. DLNE03-000297-2026 Shyam Sundar Vs. Rakesh Sharma
	Page No. 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
has been filed in 2026. In view of same, the defendant has made
the acknowledgment and part payment of money against his
acknowledged liability, so, suit is not barred with law of
limitation. The defense of the defendants as taken in their Written
Statement can not be considered at this stage. Whether actual
cause of action lies in favour of the plaintiff or not can be
decided only after adducing evidence and appreciating the same.
In view of the above noted facts and expositions of law, the
above application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC filed by defendant nos. 1
& 2 is dismissed.
Plaintiff is directed to take steps qua service to
defendant no. 3 in terms of order dated 20.07.2026.
Matter is adjourned for admission-denial of
documents and framing of issues.
It be relisted on 18.09.2026.
AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC/ASCJ/G.JUDGE (N/E)
12.08.2026
Civ Suit 179/26
	CNR No. DLNE03-000297-2026 Shyam Sundar Vs. Rakesh Sharma
	Page No. 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --