R. S. Rawat v. Rizwan Khan

O R D E R %

07.11.2024 CM APPL. 43934/2024 (delay)

¶1The Application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the accompanying Revision Petition.

¶2For the reasons stated in the Application and in the interest of justice, the delay of 48 days in filing the accompanying Revision Petition is condoned. The Application is allowed.

¶3The Application is disposed of accordingly. C.R.P. 231/2024

¶4The Revision Petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' hereinafter) has been filed on behalf of the Revisionist (Defendant) in the Suit against the Order dated 04.03.2024 of learned ADJ, New Delhi, dismissing the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶5Briefly stated, the Plaintiff had filed a Suit for Recovery of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. Rs.5,11,302/- against the Defendant/Revisionist on the ground that the Plaintiff is an Architect and Interior Designer. The Plaintiff entered into an Agreement with the Defendant for repair construction, renovation and maintenance of his residence at C-103, Second Floor, Jalvayu Vihar, P3, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. According to the Plaintiff, the meeting for settling the terms and conditions of the Agreement, were arrived at his Office at Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017. The Defendant paid around 75% of the agreed amount for the Contract work while Rs.5,11,302/- is still outstanding against the Defendant.

¶6An Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed on behalf of the Revisionist/Defendant wherein it was averred that no cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and thus, the Suit was liable to be rejected. It was submitted that the house to be renovated, was located in Greater Noida and the Defendant is based in Noida. The Plaintiff had produced GST but the same stands cancelled in 2020. It was denied that any part of the cause of action or any meeting ever took place in Delhi. Therefore, the Suit of the Plaintiff was sought to be rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction.

¶7The Application was contested by the Plaintiff, who explained that all the events/transactions and meetings were held at his Office in Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and all the transactions between the parties, were done Online in the Account of the Plaintiff, at New Delhi. Reliance has also been made on an Invoice dated 25.07.2002, which has been also raised from the Office of the Plaintiff. It was thus, submitted that part cause of action has arisen in Delhi and the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, is liable to be rejected. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶8Learned ADJ vide impugned Order dated 04.03.2024 noted that for the purpose of deciding the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the Plaint, are to be looked into. There were specific averments made in the Plaint that the terms of the Agreement was settled at his Office at Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and that payments had also been credited in his Account at New Delhi. The learned Trial Court had observed that the objection of jurisdiction as taken by the Defendant, can be adjudicated only after recording of evidence and the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, was rejected.

¶9Aggrieved, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

¶10Learned counsel for the Revisionist has re-emphasised that the property to be renovated was located in Greater Noida and no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi.

¶11Submissions heard.

¶12It is the specific averment of the Plaintiff in his Plaint that the terms of Settlement were decided at his Office in Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and also that the amounts for the work done by him were also credited in his Account at Delhi. It has been rightly observed by the learned ADJ that for the purpose of considering the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is only the averments made in the Plaint, which can be considered. It is the defence of the Defendant that no transaction took place in Delhi, which is a matter of trial and cannot be considered in response to the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶13The Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rightly rejected. There is no merit in the Revision Petition, which is hereby dismissed. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶14The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J NOVEMBER 7, 2024/RS

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 231/2024 R. S. RAWAT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saifuddin Shams, Advocate. versus RIZWAN KHAN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Salman Ali Khan and Mr. Akshay, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA