Order 7 Rule 11

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIAL HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI

SUIT NO. ___/ 2019
IN RE:
IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S. G.K. STELL COMPANY
REGISTERED OFFICE
X-16/4 LOHA MANDI
NARAINA, NEW DELHI-110028 ______PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MR. SATISH SHARMA

PROP. M/S. OM TRADING CORPORATION
H-120, SECTOR-4,
BAWANA, DELHI ____DEFENDANT
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER VII RULE

11 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the plaintiff has filed the above named case purportedly
under order ______CPC for recover of money against the
defendant and the same is fixed for filing of leave to defend
to summon for judgement. The defendant is filing its leave to
defend separately.
2. That primarily it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant in
the year 2017 request to the plaintiff to provide the materials
related to P-20, die steel M.S. plate, Round, Alex, Hot Die
Steel etc. as when required by the defendant and as per the
business understanding plaintiff started supplying the

materials to the defendant on the specific orders from the
defendant.
3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that it was the
understanding between parties that plaintiff shall raise bills
for the goods supplied and defendant shall pay within thirty
days from receipt of the goods.
4. It is also the case of the plaintiff that as on 06.08.2019 Rs.
15,12,205.00 was due against the defendant as per the
books of account maintained by the plaintiff and defendant
has given a cheque No. 060308 for Rs. 1,50,000.00 drawn
on Axis bank, Bawana, New Delhi-110039 towards its legal
and valid debt.
5. The plaintiff has further submitted that this Hon’ble court has
territorial jurisdiction over the matter as the registered office
of the defendant is situated within the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble court.
6. That the defendant states that from the pleading of the
plaintiff and documents filed in support of its case this
Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction over the matter and no
cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble court for the following reason.
a. That the above noted suit and application seeking
summons for judgment has not been filed and
instituted by a duly authorized and competent person
and hence the suit of the plaintiff itself is liable to be

dismissed. The affidavit in support is false affidavits.
Further Sh. Devinder Singhal the alleged SPA holder, is
neither competent nor authorized to institute the above
noted suit. Further the alleged SPA is not lawfully
executed document, hence the alleged SPA being a
false and unlawful document, cannot give authority to
Sh. Devinder Singhal to file and institute the suit and
summon for judgment hence also the in above noted
suit which is liable to be dismissed.
b. That this Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to try and
entertain the above noted suit as there is no cause of
action has arisen in favour of plaintiff and against the
defendant within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.
c. It is further stated that the invoices are raised by the
Plaintiff are false and fabricated and no goods were
received by the Defendant. Further even the plaintiff
has no office in Delhi and the address given by the
plaintiff is false and bogus as there is postal
endorsement to this effect.
d. It is well settled that mere having registered office at a
place where no part of cause of action has arisen;
confer the jurisdiction upon the court.
7. That if that being the case of the plaintiff then the present
suit under the provision of the CPC cannot surely be
maintainable as having not only barred by law but also

having disclosing no cause of action to sue the defendant
under the provision of the code of civil procedure.
8. That it is the established principle of law that while
considering the question of rejection of plaint, the court
needs to peruse the plaint and documents annexed with it
only and on bare perusal it becomes quite clear that the
plaint does not disclose any cause of action or is barred by
law then the court need not look into any other document
and the suit should be nipped in the bud.
9. That while considering this aspect the court should be careful
to look beyond the clever drafting and see on the root of the
case as to whether the plaintiff has any cause of action or
not. The provision of rejection of plaint has been enacted to
discourage the litigants from flooding the courts with
frivolous and vexatious claims. Whenever the court even on
its own motion finds a suit to be deficient in having a cause
of action, such suit should be rejected so that there is no
more any abuse of the process of the court.
10. It is well settled that the court can reject a plaint at any
stage of proceeding if it is satisfied that the conditions of the
provision is satisfied. Clever drafting creating an illusion of
cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to
sue must be shown in the plaint. Moreover, the power under
order 7 rule 11 is not exhaustive and the court has got
inherent powers to see that the vexatious litigations are not
allowed to take or consume the time of the court. It is

needless to submit that the provision for rejection of plaint is
mandatory and the court is bound to act if the plaint is found
to be lacking in cause of action or debarred to proceed ahead
by any provision of law.
11. That if that being the position in law then in the context of
pleading of the plaintiff this suit cannot be allowed to
proceed ahead and the plaint should be rejected having
disclosing no cause of action to sue under the provision of
law as stated above.
12. That the defendant would be prejudiced if the prayer for
rejection of plaint is not allowed. For ends of justice this
application be allowed.
13. That the present application is bona fide and for ends of
justice.
PRAYER
In the circumstances mentioned above it is therefore most
respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble court be pleased to reject the
plaint as provided for under the provision of order 7 rule 11 of
CPC.
Pass any such other or further order which this Hon’ble court may
deem fit and proper in favour of the defendant to meet the end of
justice.
DEFENDANT
THROUGH
DATE: .09.2019
AMULYA DHINGRA & DIWAKAR SINGH

ADVOCATES
LGF, L-82,
KIRTI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI 110015
9911400404 & 9871122035
[email protected]
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIAL HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO. ___/ 2019
IN RE:
IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S. G.K. STELL COMPANY
REGISTERED OFFICE
X-16/4 LOHA MANDI
NARAINA, NEW DELHI-110028 ______PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MR. SATISH SHARMA

PROP. M/S. OM TRADING CORPORATION
H-120, SECTOR-4,
BAWANA, DELHI ____DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of The above named deponent do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is proprietor of defendant company and is

duly authorized and competent to swear and file the present
affidavit on behalf of Defendant Company. The deponent is
well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case
and therefore is well competent to swear the present
affidavit.
2. That the contents of the accompanying application under
order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC on behalf
of defendant has been drafted by my counsel upon my
instruction and read over to me and I understand the
contents of the same and the same are true and correct and
the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit and
are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at Delhi on this ___day of January, 2019 that the contents
of my affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and nothing has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT

Order 7 Rule 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Order 7 Rule 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Order 7 Rule 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIAL HOUSE

COURTS, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. SATISH SHARMA

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER VII RULE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

under order ______CPC for recover of money against the

defendant and the same is fixed for filing of leave to defend

to summon for judgement. The defendant is filing its leave to

2. That primarily it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant in

the year 2017 request to the plaintiff to provide the materials

Steel etc. as when required by the defendant and as per the

business understanding plaintiff started supplying the

3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that it was the

understanding between parties that plaintiff shall raise bills

days from receipt of the goods.

4. It is also the case of the plaintiff that as on 06.08.2019 Rs.

15,12,205.00 was due against the defendant as per the

books of account maintained by the plaintiff and defendant

has given a cheque No. 060308 for Rs. 1,50,000.00 drawn

on Axis bank, Bawana, New Delhi-110039 towards its legal

and valid debt.

territorial jurisdiction over the matter as the registered office

of the defendant is situated within the jurisdiction of this

6. That the defendant states that from the pleading of the

plaintiff and documents filed in support of its case this

Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction over the matter and no

cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble court for the following reason.

a. That the above noted suit and application seeking

summons for judgment has not been filed and

instituted by a duly authorized and competent person

and hence the suit of the plaintiff itself is liable to be

Further Sh. Devinder Singhal the alleged SPA holder, is

neither competent nor authorized to institute the above

noted suit. Further the alleged SPA is not lawfully

executed document, hence the alleged SPA being a

false and unlawful document, cannot give authority to

Sh. Devinder Singhal to file and institute the suit and

summon for judgment hence also the in above noted

suit which is liable to be dismissed.

b. That this Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to try and

entertain the above noted suit as there is no cause of

action has arisen in favour of plaintiff and against the

defendant within the territorial jurisdiction of this

c. It is further stated that the invoices are raised by the

Plaintiff are false and fabricated and no goods were

received by the Defendant. Further even the plaintiff

has no office in Delhi and the address given by the

plaintiff is false and bogus as there is postal

endorsement to this effect.

d. It is well settled that mere having registered office at a

place where no part of cause of action has arisen;

confer the jurisdiction upon the court.

suit under the provision of the CPC cannot surely be

maintainable as having not only barred by law but also

under the provision of the code of civil procedure.

8. That it is the established principle of law that while

considering the question of rejection of plaint, the court