ELECTRORAMA Vs. SWARAN TALKIES, HOSHIARPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is against order dated 19.5.2015, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, whereby application under Order 7 Rules 10 & 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the petitioner for rejection of plaint, was dismissed. Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of present petition that certain refurbishing were to be carried out in the cinema hall so as to convert the same into cineplex for the payment of Rs. 48,00,000/-. On receipt of Rs. 45,00,000/-, present petitioner supplied the equipments to the respondent. The invoices and receipts are Annexures P2 to P6. As per petitioner, in terms of invoices, in case of any dispute, the same was to be referred to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi.

(2.) As such, both the parties were in the knowledge that the Civil Courts at Delhi have the jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. The entire installation work was done by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the respondent and on 12.12.2010, respondent informed the petitioner regarding technical defects having been developed in the system. Petitioner company deputed Technician and made the system functional to the satisfaction of the respondent. Petitioner requested the respondent to make payment of Rs. 3,96,000/- which was the outstanding amount and hence, petitioner approached the Civil Courts at Delhi for recovery of the said amount. On 3.2.2011, Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi returned the case file for want of territorial jurisdiction and review application was filed. Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi reviewed his earlier order dated 3.2.2011 that the territorial jurisdiction was to be decided by way of evidence only.

(3.) Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the view taken by the Delhi High Court in casess M/s Agroha and Another v. M/s KLJ Pollyalloys and Suresh Chand Purwar (Karta) v. Vivek Purwar , this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute on the facts that the equipments were installed at Hoshiarpur. The cause of action had also arisen at Hoshiarpur and that way the territorial jurisdiction is of Civil Courts at Hoshiarpur. Such an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on this ground is certainly liable to be dismissed because civil suit having been filed at Hoshiarpur is not barred. Such a view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Rep. By GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy and Another v. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others, 2015 2 RCR(Civ) 43 , wherein it was observed that the conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are stringent. More so, plaint is to be read as a whole to find out whether the same discloses the cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. The plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be rejected only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose the cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of trial. Applying the same principles of law to the present set of facts, on the basis of facts available on the file, cause of action has certainly arisen at Hoshiarpur and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts at Hoshiarpur cannot be rejected outrightly and as such there was no question of acceptance of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and there is no illegality in the order under challenge. Present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.