Delhi District Court
Akshat Garg vs M/S A3G Healthcare Llp on 21 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Civ Suit 1283/2024
AKSHAT GARG Vs. A3G HEALTHCARE LLP AND ORS.
21.02.2025
ORDER
1. This is an application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC filed by defendant no. 4 seeking rejection of plaint in the present case.
2. The present application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC has been filed by defendant no. 4 seeking rejection of plaint on various grounds.
Firstly, it is stated that the plaintiff had entered into a lease deed with the defendant no. 4 for the commercial purpose. As such, the present court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit being commercial in nature, thus, barred by law. It is to be noted that in the same application as per Para. No.4, the defendant no. 4 has himself stated that the suit property was sealed by the MCD due to the carrying of business in a residential property. However, the same has been de-sealed by the MCD on the order passed by monitoring committee, constituted by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after obtaining an undertaking from the defendant no. 4 that the suit property shall be used for residential purpose. Thus, at one hand, the defendant no. 4 seeks the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit property was given for a commercial purpose but on the other hand, it is admitted by himself that the suit property is a residential property, which has been de-sealed also by the MCD upon the undertaking of defendant no. 4 that the same will be used for residential purpose. Thus, it clearly infers that the suit property is essentially a residential property and not a property which could be used for commercial purpose. As per the plaint, the plaintiff has also Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.02.21 15:19:17 +0530 __________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 1283/2024 AKSHAT GARG Vs. A3G HEALTHCARE LLP AND ORS. Page No. 1 of 5 CNR No.: DLSH03-002138-2024 stated that the suit property was given on lease by the defendant no. 4 by representing that the leased premises are commercial and the conversion charges have been paid to the authorities. Thus, considering that the suit property is actually a residential property which could not be put to any commercial use, there is no merit in the ground taken by the defendant no. 4 that the present court does not have the jurisdiction on account that the suit property was commercial purpose, being barred by law.
Secondly, the defendant no. 4 has stated that the plaintiff had initiated the arbitration proceedings for the settlement of dispute which were later on dropped for the reason best known to the plaintiff. Thus, the present court do not have the jurisdiction being barred by law. In the reply filed by the plaintiff, it is admitted that the notice for invoking arbitration was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 4 but the defendant no. 4 did not respond and as such, the arbitration could not take place. Thus, the plaintiff do not deny that the arbitration proceedings were invoked against the defendant no. 4. It is to be noted that the present case has been filed by the plaintiff against three other defendants also, alongwith defendant no. 4 for which the arbitration is admitted to be invoked. Considering that the lease deed was entered between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 4 only, it cannot be disputed that the other three defendants could not be the party to the arbitration proceedings which were invoked on the basis of the arbitration clause which was the part of the lease agreement. Thus, the comprehensive relief which the plaintiff has claimed in the present case could not be granted in any circumstance in the arbitration proceedings, if any and on top of that the other three defendants could not be made party to the arbitration proceedings being not a party to the lease agreement. As such, there is no merit in the second ground taken by the defendant no. 4.
Thirdly, it is the ground taken by defendant no. 4 that the plaintiff has not paid the rent since February 2018 to the defendant no. 4 and has surrendered the tenancy rights. It is stated that the plaintiff has categorically stated that he has already sold his articles on heavy discounted prices and vacated the suit property. Thus, it is the ground that the plaintiff do not have the locus standi to file the present suit as the rent for the suit property has not been paid by Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.02.21 __________________________________________________________________________________ 15:19:22 +0530 Civ Suit 1283/2024 AKSHAT GARG Vs. A3G HEALTHCARE LLP AND ORS. Page No. 2 of 5 CNR No.: DLSH03-002138-2024 the plaintiff since February 2018. The plaintiff in his reply has denied the ground that the rent has not been paid since February 2018 to defendant no. 4 or that the tenancy rights have been surrendered by him. It is stated by the plaintiff that the fact of de-sealing of the property has been first time disclosed to the plaintiff through the WS, which has been filed by defendant no.4 in the present case. Also perusal of the plaint nowhere reveals wherein the plaintiff has stated that the tenancy rights to the suit property were surrendered by him or the plaintiff had sold his articles on heavy discounted prices and vacated the suit property. Rather it has been clearly stated by the plaintiff that an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- was deposited by him as security amount with the defendant no. 4 and a sum of Rs.6,30,000/- were also realized by defendant no.4 by way of post-dated cheques on 05.02.2018. The plaintiff has stated that all his articles including furnitures and fixtures were lying in the sealed leased premises and during his visit to the suit property, it was noticed by the plaintiff that some of the fixtures were missing in respect to which a complaint was also filed by him. Considering the ground taken by the defendant no.4 and the pleadings, the payment of rent and the removal of the furniture and fixtures can only be adjudicated during the trial and could not be decided at this stage so as to make it the basis for rejecting the plaint.
It is the fourth ground that the present suit is barred by law of limitation. However, how the same is being barred has nowhere being stated in the application. Perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has mentioned in Para. No. 18 that it was on 19.11.2024 when he visited to see his leased premises/suit property wherein he found that his locks were not found on the property and some interior work was going on and all his articles were stolen. Thus, as per the plaint, the cause of action is stated to have arisen on 19.11.2024 and the present case had been filed before the court on 13.12.2024. As such, the ground of the defendant that the present suit is barred by law do not have any merit.
It is the fifth ground that the present suit is also liable to be dismissed against the defendant no. 4 as the plaintiff has not claimed any relief against him and the present case has been filed only to harass and humiliate the defendant no. 4. The plaintiff has approached the Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA __________________________________________________________________________________ Date: 2025.02.21 15:19:25 +0530 Civ Suit 1283/2024 AKSHAT GARG Vs. A3G HEALTHCARE LLP AND ORS. Page No. 3 of 5 CNR No.: DLSH03-002138-2024 court only to fulfill his ulterior motives. Thus, no relief could be granted to the plaintiff. Perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has clearly stated the role of defendant no. 4 in Para. No. 1 alongwith other relevant paragraphs, to be the one who has leased the suit property to him by representing the same that the leased premises are commercial upon which the defendant no. 4 had already paid the conversion charges. The relief which has been claimed by the plaintiff in his prayer clause is against all the defendants including the defendant no. 4. Thus, the ground that no relief has been sought against the defendant no. 4 is baseless.
3. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deals with rejection of plaint. It is reproduced below:-
"Order 7 Rule 11 CPC- Rejection of plaint- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action:
(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so:
(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so:
(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law:
(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."
Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.02.21
15:19:28 +0530
__________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 1283/2024 AKSHAT GARG Vs. A3G HEALTHCARE LLP AND ORS. Page No. 4 of 5 CNR No.: DLSH03-002138-2024 "In Gunjan Khanna & Anr. (Ms.) Vs. Mr. Arunabha Suit no. 149/15 Page no. 2/11 Maitra 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 258, it was held that, "For the purpose of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court is only required to examine the plaint and neither the written statement, nor any other pleadings should be a matter of consideration at the said stage." Further, in Saleem Bhai & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 557, it was held that, "For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage."
Further, in The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Education Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust (SC) 2012 (4) CTC 308, it has been held that while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint, the documents filed alongwith plaint have to be looked into. Further in M/s Texem Engineering Vs. M/s Texcomash Exports, (CS (OS) 407/1997 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 13.08.2009) it has been held that For the purpose of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the Court should examine only the plaint and documents filed alongwith it.
4. In view of the law as mentioned above, at this stage for deciding maintainability of the suit, only the contents of plaint and documents so relied by plaintiff are germane.
5. Thus in light of the above discussion, the court do not find any merit in the application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC moved by the defendant no. 4 and the same application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is disposed off as dismissed.
Announced in open Court. Digitally signed
On this 21st February, 2025 DEEPALI by DEEPALI
SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.02.21
This Judgment contains 5 pages 15:19:31 +0530
and is signed by me.
(DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
__________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 1283/2024 AKSHAT GARG Vs. A3G HEALTHCARE LLP AND ORS. Page No. 5 of 5 CNR No.: DLSH03-002138-2024