Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 29 CS SCJ 1046/23
M/S OXALER HOME APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. Vs. DEEPAK
SAPRA
`
27.10.2025
Present: Sh. Hemant Kumar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff (Through VC)
Ms. Arti Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendant (Through VC).
Arguments heard on application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC.
The primary contention raised by the applicant is that the
plaint ought to be rejected u/O VII R 11 (d) CPC as the Court does not
have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and the same is
barred by law of limitation.
The law as regards the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is
no longer res-integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Saleem Bhai v. State
of Maharashtra 2003(1) SCC 557, while dealing with the same held as
follows:
"A perusal of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. makes it clear that
the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding
an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint.
The trial court can exercise the power under Order VII
Rule 11 C.P.C. at any stage of the suit-before registering
the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any
time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of
deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule
11 of Order VII C.P.C. the averments in the plaint are
germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written
statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage,
therefore, a direction to file the written statement without
deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
CS SCJ 1046/23
M/S OXALER HOME APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. Vs. DEEPAK SAPRA
of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order, therefore,
suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the
court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court,
however, did not advert to these aspects. We are, therefore,
of the view that for the afore-mentioned reasons, the
common order under challenge is liable to be set aside and
we, accordingly, do so. We remit the cases to the trial court
for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C. on the basis of the averments in the plaint, after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties in
accordance with law.”
As regards the contention of territorial jurisdiction, it is
argued on behalf of the Defendant that this Court does not has territorial
jurisdiction as the Defendant is a resident of Gurugram, Haryana and
goods were also supplied to the Defendant at Gurugram, Haryana.
Lack of territorial jurisdiction is not a ground for dismissal
of suit under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Further, perusal of
the plaint at para no. 14 clearly shows that part cause of action has
arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and it is mentioned
in para 14 of the plaint that the order was placed and goods were also
supplied to the Defendant from the office of plaintiff company at ground
floor 99, Nangli Poona, main Kadipur road, North, Delhi. Therefore, this
Court does have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present case.
As regards the contention that the present suit is barred by
law of limitation, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant that
goods were lastly supplied to the Defendant on 16.04.2019 and the
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
CS SCJ 1046/23
M/S OXALER HOME APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. Vs. DEEPAK SAPRA
present suit is filed by Plaintiff in September, 2023 which is beyond the
period of limitation.
Per contra, it it is submitted by plaintiff that the suit is
within period of limitation as it can be seen from the ledger account at
page 28 annexed with the plaint that the Plaintiff purchased the return
goods from the Defendant on 30.04.2022 as per voucher bill no. L-0096-
22-23 for a sum of Rs. 4857/-. It is further submitted on behalf of the
Plaintiff that otherwise also, the present suit is within period of
limitation as per the Hon'ble Apex Court in suo moto WPC 3/2020
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court enhanced the limitation by excluding the
period, ie, 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. Hence, the present suit has the
limitation to file recovery amount till 16.04.2024.
At this stage, what the Court has to see is only the
averments in the plaint and it is clearly mentioned in para 16 of the
plaint that suit is within the period of limitation. Further, limitation is a
mixed question of fact and law which shall be decided at the stage of
trial and not at this stage. Prima facie, the suit of plaintiff is within
limitation. Accordingly, this ground taken by Defendant is also devoid
of any merits. Hence, this objection is also untenable and stands
rejected.
In light of the aforesaid observations the present application
is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merits.
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
CS SCJ 1046/23
M/S OXALER HOME APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. Vs. DEEPAK SAPRA
Perusal of the case file shows that no WS has been filed on
behalf of the Defendant till date. In the interest of justice, final
opportunity is being given to file WS, if any, along with appropriate
application for condonation of delay failing which right to file the same
will be closed.
Put up the matter for further proceedings on 04.02.2026.
(RENU)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/27.10.2025
-- 4 of 4 --