BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD Vs. ELECTROMAST INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil revision is directed against the order of the trial Court dismissing the application filed by defendant under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. It was stated in the application that the suit filed by the plaintiff in an abuse of the process of law and in fact damages have been claimed in the suit which, on the face of it are meritless and time barred.

(2.) THE jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Hissar was also challenged. It was averred that the plaint did not disclose any contract between the plaintiff and the defendants and no amount was due and payable to the plaintiff from the defendants. The objection with regard to under-valuation of the suit was also taken. Plaintiffs also filed an application under Order VIII Rule (sic) Code of Civil Procedure as well as reply to the application under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure wherein it was stated that the defendants instead of filing written statement, filed various miscellaneous applications in order to delay the decision in the suit. It was also prayed that the defendants be directed to file written-statement. Trial Court dismissed the application of the defendants as it was of the view that all the objections raised by the defendants in the application under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, can be taken by them in the written statement and these can be decided after framing preliminary issues. This order is being challenged by the defendants in the civil revision.

(3.) MR. H. L. Sibal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner made a pointed reference to paras 5 and 10 of the plaint to contend that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was only of buyer and seller and a specific amount i. e. Rs. 3,73,950/- has been claimed on account of material less purchased than the target and a debit note of this amount is dated 22. 5. 1984 and the suit has been filed on 5. 4. 1990 which is clearly time barred. He further contended that the plaintiff never acted as an agent of the defendants and, therefore, suit for rendition of accounts is not maintainable.