Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT) - 01, NORTH WEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.)/144/2023
Pure and Cure Pvt. Lrd. Vs. Premedium Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And
Ors.
ORDER ON THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
04.11.2025
1. By this order I shall decide an application under order VII Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as CPC) moved on
behalf of Defendant No. (1) and (4) seeking rejection of plaint.
2. Arguments on this application advanced by Sh. Arvind Jha, Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Vinod Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for
defendants
(Through VC) already heard. Record perused.
3. The Plaintiff has instituted the present recovery suit alleging breach
of contract / non-payment for goods supplied. The plaint and
annexures relied upon therein, states that the parties had business
dealings and transactions culminating in invoices, purchase orders
and payments. The plaint contains interalia, the contract agreements,
invoices, purchase orders, correspondence and and service of notice
by the mediation authority which, according to the Plaintiff,
culminated in a non-starter report.
4. The Defendant Nos. (1) & (4) have moved an application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC on the following principal grounds:
CS (COMM.)/144/2023 Pure and Cure Pvt. Lrd. Vs. Premedium Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
(a) The Plaintiff has not complied with Section 12A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (pre-institution mediation)
and, in particular, the non-starter report required by the rules
is not on record as the notice was only sent by e-mail and
thus is invalid;
(b) The plaint does not disclose a cause of action in the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court because supply/receipt took place
outside Delhi, I.e., at Gurgaon / Uttarakhand; and
(c) The Plaintiff has not produced necessary documentary
evidence of receipt/supply.
5. Notice of the present application was issued to the Plaintiff. Reply to
the present application has been filed.
6. The Plaintiff resists the present application asserting that it has fully
complied with the requirements of Section 12A of the Commercial
Courts Act, including participation in the pre-institution mediation
proceedings and the issuance of a non-starter report by the DLSA;
that as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) framed by the
DLSA, service of notice through electronic means such as email and
WhatsApp is permissible for pre-institution mediation, and hence,
service effected by email during the Covid-19 period, being in line
with prevalent DLSA practice, was valid and sufficient; that the cause
of action has arisen, at least in part, within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Court, as the agreements were executed at Delhi, key
transactions and communications were made at Delhi, and invoices
and payments were raised and received at Saraswati Vihar, Delhi,
coupled with an express jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction
CS (COMM.)/144/2023 Pure and Cure Pvt. Lrd. Vs. Premedium Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
upon Delhi Courts; and finally, that the present application is
misconceived, not maintainable, and has been filed with the sole
intent of delaying the proceedings in the suit.
7. I have considered the submissions made by Ld. counsel for plaintiff
and Ld. Counsel for defendants and perused the entire material on
record.
8. It is well settled law that while examining an application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to confine itself only to the
averments contained in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto.
The defence of the defendant is wholly irrelevant at this stage.
9. The test to be applied is whether, assuming all the facts in the plaint
to be true, the plaint discloses a real and genuine cause of action, or
whether the same is merely an illusory creation by clever drafting.
The plaint must be read as a whole, in a meaningful and not a formal
manner, to ascertain whether a clear right to sue is made out.
10. It is not permissible for the Court to dissect or reject particular
paragraphs or sentences of the plaint; the pleading must be read in its
entirety. Further, while interpreting the plaint, the Court must avoid a
hyper-technical approach and construe the averments in a natural and
holistic manner so as to give effect to the substance of the pleading
rather than its form. (See Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, 2003
(1) SCC 557; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity
Commissioner, 2004 (3) SCC 137)
CS (COMM.)/144/2023 Pure and Cure Pvt. Lrd. Vs. Premedium Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
11. Now adverting to the facts of the present application, upon perusal of
the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that
pre-institution mediation was duly initiated before the Delhi Legal
Services Authority (DLSA), that notice of mediation was served upon
the defendant via electronic means in accordance with the DLSA’s
Standard Operating Procedure prevalent during the Covid-19 period,
and that a non-starter report was issued thereafter. These averments,
supported by the documents annexed, prima facie demonstrate
compliance with Section 12A. Whether such service was effectively
received or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be
adjudicated at this stage. The plaint, therefore, cannot be rejected on
this ground.
12. As regards territorial jurisdiction, the plaint discloses that the cause of
action has arisen, at least in part, within the jurisdiction of this Court,
since the agreement dated 18.02.2019 between the Plaintiff and
Defendant No. 1 was executed at Delhi, invoices and payments were
raised and received at Saraswati Vihar, Delhi, and an express
jurisdiction clause contained in agreement dated 18.02.2019 confers
jurisdiction upon Delhi Courts. These averments, if accepted at their
face value, are sufficient to vest territorial jurisdiction upon this
Court. The question of whether any other Court may also have
concurrent jurisdiction or whether the claim is otherwise barred are
matters to be determined after evidence is led, and not at the present
stage.
13. The contention of the defendants that the plaint deserves rejection for
want of supporting documentary evidence regarding the alleged
CS (COMM.)/144/2023 Pure and Cure Pvt. Lrd. Vs. Premedium Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
supply and receipt of goods is misplaced at this stage. It is well settled
that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the
Court is required to confine itself to the averments made in the plaint
and the documents filed along with it, and not to evaluate the
correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. The existence or otherwise
of oral or documentary evidence substantiating the claim is a matter
that falls within the realm of trial. At this stage, the Court is only to
examine whether the plaint when read as a whole, discloses a cause of
action. Whether the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in proving the same
by admissible evidence is an issue that can be adjudicated only after
both parties have led oral and documentary evidence at the stage of
trial. Accordingly, the objection regarding non-production or
insufficiency of documents does not furnish a ground for rejection of
the plaint at this preliminary stage.
14. Therefore, on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it cannot be said that
the suit is barred by law or that it discloses no cause of action. The
plaint cannot be characterized as vexatious or illusory, and the
application appears to be an attempt to delay the proceedings.
Accordingly, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is without
merit and stands dismissed.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 04th day of November, 2025
(DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
North-West/Rohini/Delhi
04.11.2025
CS (COMM.)/144/2023 Pure and Cure Pvt. Lrd. Vs. Premedium Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --