Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 31 CS SCJ 921/23
MR. ROSHAN LAL Vs. GREEN LOUNGE NORTH BANQUETS
06.01.2026
Present : Ms. Manu Bakshi, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff through VC.
Sh. Pradeep, Ld. Counsel for Defendant.
Arguments heard on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Be put up for Orders during course of the day.
(Mayank Mittal)
SCJ-cum-RC, North-West,
Rohini Courts, Delhi/06.01.2026
At 03:00 pm
Present : None
Matter is fixed for orders on application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC filed on behalf of defendant. I have already heard arguments and
perused record in the morning session.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for applicant/defendant that the
plaint in the present suit is liable to be rejected as there is no cause of
action for filing the present suit. It is submitted that present suit has been
filed for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- by plaintiff from the defendant, which
was advanced by plaintiff to the defendant at the time of booking of
banquet hall by plaintiff for marriage of his daughter. It is submitted that
the documents annexed with the plaint i.e. rough estimate and receipt itself
mentioned clearly and unequivocally that advance amount shall not be
refunded in any case. It is submitted as plaintiff has agreed for the said
condition, no right of plaintiff can be said to have been violated and no
civil suit for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- is maintainable.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the application is
liable to be dismissed as mere writing of terms and conditions on rough
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
estimate does not become binding on the plaintiff as defendant has not
itself complied with the conditions mentioned on the rough estimate. It is
submitted that the receipt issued by defendant cannot be proof of
agreement regarding the conditions mentioned on the receipt as same has
not been signed by the plaintiff. It is further submitted that apart from the
above arguments, the fresh cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff for
filing the present suit, when the managers of defendant namely Sh. Ajay
Maini and Sh. Sandeep Sharma had assured the plaintiff for return of the
booking amount if the banquet of plaintiff is booked for which the booking
was made by the plaintiff earlier. It is submitted that plaintiff has himself
visited the banquet hall of the defendant on the said date i.e. 16.02.2025
and found that same was booked for that date. It is submitted that despite
no. of visits and requests by plaintiff in the office of defendant after
16.02.2025, the defendant has not returned the booking amount to the
plaintiff. It is submitted as defendant has not suffered any loss and also
agreed to return the booking amount subject to booking of the banquet hall
for the date, for which the said hall was booked by plaintiff, the plaintiff
has clear cause of action for filing the present suit. It is requested that the
application be dismissed with the heavy cost.
It is trite law that for deciding application under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC, only the plaint and documents annexed with the plaint have to be
considered. The defence of defendant is not to be considered at the time of
deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Court has to read
the plaint in totality while deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
In the case at hand, the plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that the managers
of defendant namely Sh. Ajay Maini and Sh. Sandeep Sharma had assured
the plaintiff for return of the booking amount if the banquet of plaintiff is
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
booked for which the booking was made by the plaintiff earlier. The said
fact gives a fresh cause of action to the plaintiff for filing the suit for
recovery of advance amount. The truthfulness or falsity of the said fact
cannot be decided at this stage and the same requires the evidence to be
lead by the parties. Accordingly, no merit is found in the application and
the application is dismissed.
As the present suit has been filed for recovery of advance
amount, there seem to be an element of settlement in the present suit. Both
the parties are directed to appear before the next National Lok Adalat i.e.
10.01.2026 for exploring the possibilities of settlement. In case matter
could not be settled in National Lok Adalat, parties shall appear before this
Court on 20.02.2026 for filing of replication and framing of issues.
(Mayank Mittal)
SCJ-cum-RC, North-West,
Rohini Courts, Delhi/06.01.2026
-- 3 of 3 --