Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS (Comm.)No.233/2025: M/s Sneha Fab Pvt.Ltd. V/s Jai Narayan, Prop.of M/s Ganga Enterprises
CS (Comm.) No.233/2025 (30)
M/s Sneha Fab Pvt. Ltd. V/s Jai Narayan, Proprietor of M/s Ganga
Enterprises
CNR No.DLNW01-002833-2025
23.04.2026
Present: Ms.Nikita Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Ms.Saijal Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
1. As per the service report, the defendant was served with e-
summons on 04.09.2025. Even the Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of
defendant on 15.12.2025, but till date the written statement in the matter
has not been filed. More than 120 days from the date of service of
summons had elapsed. As such, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in case reported as, “Civil Appeal
No.1638/2019)”, titled as, “M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. V/s K.S
Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.” (DOD: 12.02.2019), this Court
had no alternative but to strike off defence of the defendant. The defence
of the defendant accordingly stands struck off.
2. An application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC has been filed
on behalf of defendant,
inter alia contending therein that this Court does
not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
3. The learned counsel for the defendant has taken me through
the invoices which contemplate the place of payment to be HDFC Bank,
Bhilwara Branch of the plaintiff and further that any dispute between the
parties would be subject to “Ludhiana jurisdiction”.
Page 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
CS (Comm.)No.233/2025: M/s Sneha Fab Pvt.Ltd. V/s Jai Narayan, Prop.of M/s Ganga Enterprises
4. Per contra, para 6 of the plaint reveals that plaintiff has
contended that the defendant had approached it at their Delhi office for
supply of goods. A perusal of the Account Statement of Kotak Mahindra
Bank of the plaintiff as also ledger account reveals that the defendant had
made part payment(s) to the plaintiff in their bank account in Kotak
Mahindra Bank, Netaji Subhash Place Branch, Pitampura, Delhi as also in
HDFC Bank account.
5. For deciding the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC,
this Court has to look into the plaint and the documents filed along
therewith. On the basis of “principle of demurrer”, this Court
prima facie
has the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The “principle of
demurrer” has been clarified by Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in case reported as, “RFA (Comm.) No.6/2023”, titled as,
“Rukhmani Keshwani Trading As Vishwas Agarbatti Store V/s Naresh
Jeswani” (DOO: 24.05.2023), whereby the Hon’ble High Court while
dealing with an identical issue and relying upon the observations made in
“Chandra Kishore Chaurasia V/s R.A Perfumery Works Private Limited”
[2022 SCC Online Delhi 3529] and “Sonal Kanodia Vs Ram Gupta &
Anr.” [2023 SCC Online Del 1132] has been pleased to observe in
paragraphs No.4 and 5 thereof as under:
xxxxx
4. Dealing with an identical issue, the Division
Bench of the Court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia
Page 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
CS (Comm.)No.233/2025: M/s Sneha Fab Pvt.Ltd. V/s Jai Narayan, Prop.of M/s Ganga Enterprises
v. R A Perfumery Works Private Ltd., [2022 SCC
OnLine Del 3529], had made the following
pertinent observations: -
“8. It is trite law that an objection
regarding territorial jurisdiction of a
court, raised by way of an application
under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, is
to be decided on a demurrer, that is, by
accepting all statements made in the
plaint to be true. Thus, the examination
for the purpose of an application under
Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC is limited
to the averments made in the plaint and
the documents filed by the plaintiff.
9. In D. Ramachandran v. R.V.
Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267, the
Supreme Court observed as under:
“...It is well settled that in all cases of
preliminary objection, the test is to see
whether any of the reliefs prayed for
could be granted to the appellant if the
averments made in the petition are
proved to be true. For the purpose of
considering a preliminary objection, the
averments in the petition should be
assumed to be true and the court has to
find out whether those averments
disclose a cause of action or a triable
issue as such. The court cannot probe
into the facts on the basis of the
controversy raised in the counter.”
10. In a later decision in Liverpool &
London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v.
Page 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
CS (Comm.)No.233/2025: M/s Sneha Fab Pvt.Ltd. V/s Jai Narayan, Prop.of M/s Ganga Enterprises
M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512,
the Supreme Court observed as under:
“139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause
of action or not is essentially a question
of fact. But whether it does or does not
must be found out from reading the
plaint itself. For the said purpose the
averments made in the plaint in their
entirety must be held to be correct. The
test is as to whether if the averments
made in the plaint are taken to be
correct in its entirety, a decree would be
passed.”
xxx xxx xxx
12. The aforesaid view has been
constantly followed by this Court as
well. In RSPL Limited v. Mukesh
Sharma, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4285, a
Coordinate Bench of this Court held as
under:
“11. It must be stated that it is a settled
proposition of law that the objection to
territorial jurisdiction in an application
under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC is by way
of a demurrer. This means that the
objection to territorial jurisdiction has to
be construed after taking all the
averments in the plaint to be correct. In
Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories
Limited, (2004) 3 SCC 688, the
Supreme Court observed that when an
objection to jurisdiction is raised by
way of demurrer and not at the trial, the
objection must proceed on the basis that
Page 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
CS (Comm.)No.233/2025: M/s Sneha Fab Pvt.Ltd. V/s Jai Narayan, Prop.of M/s Ganga Enterprises
the facts, as pleaded by the initiator of
the impugned procedure, are true. The
Supreme Court further observed that the
objection as to jurisdiction in order to
succeed must demonstrate that granted
those facts, the Court does not have
jurisdiction as a matter of law. It is also
a settled proposition of law that while
considering a plaint from the standpoint
of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, it is only the
plaint and the documents filed along
with it, that need to be seen. The written
statement is not to be looked into at all.”
13. In Allied Blenders and Distillers
Pvt. Ltd. v. Prag Distillery Pvt. Ltd.,
2017 SCC OnLine Del 6422, a Single
Judge of this Court had allowed the
application under Order VII Rule 10 of
the CPC. This was because on a prima
facie evaluation of the plaint, the Court
was of the view that the plaint did not
disclose that any cause of action had
arisen within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Court. Although the plaintiff
pleaded that it apprehended the
defendant launching its products under
the infringing trade mark within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this
Court found that there was no material
to substantiate any such apprehension.
The plaint also disclosed that the
defendant was selling its products in the
State of Andhra Pradesh and the
plaintiff was essentially aggrieved by
the same. However, the said decision
Page 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
CS (Comm.)No.233/2025: M/s Sneha Fab Pvt.Ltd. V/s Jai Narayan, Prop.of M/s Ganga Enterprises
was set aside by the Division Bench of
this Court in Allied Blenders and
Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Prag Distillery
Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7225
on the principal that the averments
made in the plaint were required to be
accepted as correct for the purpose of
deciding an application under Order VII
Rule 10 of the CPC. The plaintiff had
averred that it apprehended the
respondent launching its products in
Delhi and that it had filed the suit as a
quiatimet action. If the said averments
were accepted as correct - which the
court was required to do for the
purposes of deciding an application
under Order VII Rule 10 CPC - this
Court would have jurisdiction to
entertain the suit.
xxx xxx xxx
20. At the stage of considering an
application under Order VII Rule 10 of
the CPC, the court is not required to
examine the merits of the averments
made and to evaluate whether the
plaintiff would be able to prove or
establish the same. As noted above, for
the purpose of an application under
Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, the
averments made in the plaint are
required to be considered as correct.”
5. The decision in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia
and the principles laid down therein were again
reiterated and reaffirmed in a recent decision
Page 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
CS (Comm.)No.233/2025: M/s Sneha Fab Pvt.Ltd. V/s Jai Narayan, Prop.of M/s Ganga Enterprises
rendered by another Division Bench in Sonal
Kanodia v. Ram Gupta and Another, [2023 SCC
OnLine Del 1132]. relevant extracts of that
decision are reproduced hereinbelow: -
“6. Having heard learned counsel for
the Appellant, this Court is of the view
that it is settled law that an application
under Order VII Rule(s) 10 and 11 CPC
is to be decided on a demurrer accepting
all statements made in the plaint to be
true (See : Chandra Kishore Chaurasia
v. RA Perfumery Works Pvt. Ltd., 2022
SCC OnLine Del 3529). At the stage of
considering an application under Order
VII Rule(s) 10 and 11 CPC, the Court is
not required to examine the merits of
the averments made and to evaluate
whether the Plaintiff would be able to
prove or establish the same. For the
purpose of an application under Order
VII Rule(s) 10 and 11 CPC, the
averments made in the plaint are
required to be considered as correct.
7. Consequently, this Court is of the
view that if the statements made in the
plaint are accepted to be correct, then
the Court would have the jurisdiction to
entertain the present suit. Accordingly,
the present appeal being bereft of merit
is dismissed”
xxxxx
Page 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
CS (Comm.)No.233/2025: M/s Sneha Fab Pvt.Ltd. V/s Jai Narayan, Prop.of M/s Ganga Enterprises
6. Therefore,
prima facie this Court has the territorial jurisdiction
to entertain the present suit. The application filed by defendant under
Order VII Rule 10 CPC is accordingly dismissed.
7. List the matter for arguments under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC
now on 06.06.2026.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/23.04.2026
Page 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --