R. S. Rawat vs. Rizwan Khan

Facts

The Plaintiff, an Architect and Interior Designer, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,11,302/- against the Defendant/Revisionist. The Plaintiff claimed to have entered into an agreement with the Defendant for repair, construction, renovation, and maintenance of the Defendant's residence in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The Plaintiff asserted that meetings for settling the agreement terms took place at his office in Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, and that payments were made online to his account in New Delhi. The Defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the suit for want of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the property was in Greater Noida and no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. The Defendant also noted that the Plaintiff's GST registration was cancelled in 2020. The Plaintiff contested this, reiterating that meetings and transactions occurred in Delhi, and an invoice was also raised from his Delhi office. The learned ADJ dismissed the Defendant's application, finding that the averments in the plaint regarding cause of action arising in Delhi were sufficient to proceed, and the issue of jurisdiction required evidence.

Held

The Court held that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered. The learned ADJ had rightly observed that the Plaintiff's plaint contained specific averments that the terms of the agreement were settled at his office in Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, and that payments were credited to his account in New Delhi. The Court found that the Defendant's contention that no transaction took place in Delhi constituted a defence that required the recording of evidence and could not be considered at the stage of an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application. Therefore, the learned ADJ had correctly rejected the application. The Court found no merit in the Revision Petition. The ratio decidendi is that objections regarding territorial jurisdiction, when based on disputed facts, cannot be decided under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and must await trial. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revision Petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned ADJ erred in dismissing the Defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, thereby wrongly holding that the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,11,302/- was maintainable within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts, despite the property being located in Greater Noida and the Defendant being based in Noida? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and principles of territorial jurisdiction). Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner (Defendant) argued that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. The property to be renovated was in Greater Noida, and the Defendant was based in Noida. The Petitioner contended that the Plaintiff's GST registration was cancelled in 2020 and denied that any part of the cause of action or any meeting ever took place in Delhi. Respondent's Arguments: The Respondent (Plaintiff) argued that all relevant events, transactions, and meetings occurred at his office in Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. He further submitted that all transactions were conducted online and credited to his account in New Delhi, and an invoice dated 25.07.2002 was raised from his Delhi office. Therefore, a part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi.