Order 16

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
CS SCJ 1644/23
M/S EUPHORIA WORLD TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
Vs.
ZEVER MARKETING PVT. LTD.
01.10.2026
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off an application under order 7 rule 11
CPC filed by the defendant.
2. Briefly stated, the fact of this case as per the plaint are that the plaintiff
is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing travel and
tourism service. It is stated that the defendant is also a company having
business relations with the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendant had
approached the plaintiff in August 2023 seeking booking of 05 Star Hotel
accommodation at Goa, India for its director namely Ms. Kanika Valecha and
her family for the period of 24.09.2023 to 27.09.2026. It is stated that after
deliberation and consideration, the said booking was finalised and confirmed
and invoice No. EWH/2300000317 dated 23.09.2023 for a sum of Rs. 92,502/-
was raised for the defendant. However, the said payment has not been made by
the defendant despite repeated requests. Hence, the present suit has been filed
seeking recovery of Rs. 92,502/- alongwith interest, damages, litigation
expenses, pendent-lite and future interest.
3. The present application has been filed by the defendant stating that the
plaint fails to disclose a cause of action and the plaintiff has not produced any
document to show its claim. Hence, it is argued that the plaint be rejected. It is
-- 1 of 4 --
2
also stated that all the communication being relied by the plaintiff is with one
Mr. Ankit Valecha who is not an office bearer of the defendant company.
4. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that para no. 3 to 11 of
the plaint discloses a complete, clear and subsisting cause of action against the
defendant and relevant documents have been annexed with the plaint. As such,
it is prayed that the application be dismissed with cost being frivolous.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The grounds for rejecting a plaint U/O VII Rule 11 CPC are very
limited. The plaint can be rejected only if the defendant is able to show that the
ground is covered by clause (a) – (f) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The grounds
for rejection of plaint very limited. It is a settled law that for the purpose of
decision of an application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court should only
consider the plaint and the documents accompanying the plaint and nothing
else. The averments of the plaint, without addition or subtraction, without any
compartmentalization or dissection, must show that the provisions of Order
VII Rule 11 CPC are attracted. The defence of the defendants is not to be
considered. While considering the prayer to reject the plaint on the ground that
the plaint does not disclose a cause of action the plaint must be taken to admit,
for the sake of arguments, that the allegations of the plaintiff are true in manner
and form. The power to reject the plaint must be exercised only if the court
comes to the conclusion that even if all the allegations if taken to be proved,
the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever. Reference may be
-- 2 of 4 --
3
made to the judgments titled
Popat and Kotecha Properties V/s. State Bank of
India Staff Association, 2005 (7) SCC 510; Inspiration Clothes v/s/ M/s. Colby
International Ltd., 88 (2000) DLT 769 (DB); Liverpool & London S.P. & I
Asson. Ltd. V/s. M.V. Sea Success 2004 (9) SCC 512, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable
V/s. Assistant Charity Commissioner, 2004 (3) SCC 137.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 366 has reiterated the test for
exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11which is that if the averments made
in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied
upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down
in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I [Liverpool &
London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512]
8. Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC deals with a situation where the plaint does
not disclose a cause of action. What is a cause of action has been defined in
Swamy Atmananda Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam (2005) 10 SCC 51 and
has been reiterated in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational
Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706, as
being a bundle of facts that are material and relevant for the decision of the
case and which are required to be proved by the plaintiff to be entitled for
reliefs claimed in the suit. In T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC
467, also reiterated in Dahiben (supra), trial courts were advised to not allow
clever drafting to raise an illusion of a cause of action.
-- 3 of 4 --
4
9. Bare perusal of the plaint discloses a cause of action and the documents
i.e. invoice have been annexed alongwith the plaint which are raised in the
name of Ms. Kanika Valecha. Also, ledger account statement has been filed
regarding the defendant. Hence, this court is of the view that no ground in
Order 7 Rule 11 is made out.
10. Accordingly, the application has dismissed and disposed off.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge/N-W District
01.10.2026
-- 4 of 4 --