Delhi District Court
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Sunil R. Masih on 23 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK GOEL, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RCA SCJ 11/2016
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
Vs. SUNIL R. MASIH
CNR No.- DLSH03-001813-2016
IN THE MATTER OF
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
......Appellant
VERSUS
SH. SUNIL R. MASIH
.....Respondent
ORDER
(on application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejecting the appeal.)
1. The appellant has filed appeal against the judgment of Ld. Civil Judge dated 12.07.2007 in suit no. 119/2006 titled as Sunil R. Masih V/s. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2024.03.23
13:52:45 +0530
____________________________________________________ RCA SCJ 11/2016 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Page No. 1 of 5 Vs. SUNIL R. MASIH CNR No.- DLSH03-001813-2016
2. Respondent has filed the present application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC on the following grounds:
(i) That in compliance of judgment dated 12.07.2007, the appellant had executed the dealership agreement in favour of respondent on 29.05.2013 and once the decree is implemented/executed/enforced, no appeal is maintainable.
(ii) That the present appeal has been filed after its withdrawal from Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Central District, on the ground of jurisdiction, the said appeal and application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal shall be heard de-novo.
(iii) That the present appeal has not been filed by authorized person as no authority letter has been filed with the appeal.
3. No reply has been filed by the appellant to the present application.
4. I have heard the arguments on the said application and carefully perused the court record.
5. 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:Digitally signed
MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2024.03.23 ____________________________________________________ 13:52:49 +0530 RCA SCJ 11/2016 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Page No. 2 of 5 Vs. SUNIL R. MASIH CNR No.- DLSH03-001813-2016
(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."
"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 Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2024.03.23 ____________________________________________________ 13:52:54 +0530 RCA SCJ 11/2016 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Page No. 3 of 5 Vs. SUNIL R. MASIH CNR No.- DLSH03-001813-2016 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.
In view of the law as mentioned above, at this stage for deciding maintainability of the appeal, only the contents of appeal and documents so relied by appellant are germane.
6. The first two grounds mentioned in the present application are not the grounds on the basis of which the present appeal can be rejected. Perusal of the record reveals that the present appeal has been signed by some attorney of Bharat Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL ____________________________________________________ GOEL Date: 2024.03.23 13:52:58 +0530 RCA SCJ 11/2016 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Page No. 4 of 5 Vs. SUNIL R. MASIH CNR No.- DLSH03-001813-2016 Petroleum Corporation Ltd. However, the name of the said attorney is not found mentioned anywhere in the appeal. Moreover, the said appeal is not supported by any affidavit or any authority letter to show that the person filing the appeal as a attorney of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has a authority to file the appeal. There is neither any pleading nor any other document has been filed on record as to who had filed the present appeal as attorney of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
7. Hence, in view of the aforementioned discussion, it has to be concluded that the present appeal has not been filed by competent person. Accordingly, the present appeal is rejected u/o VII Rule 11 CPC.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court.
On this 23th March, 2024
This Order contains 5 pages Digitally signed by
and is signed by me. MAYANK MAYANK GOEL
GOEL Date: 2024.03.23
13:53:03 +0530
(MAYANK GOEL)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________ RCA SCJ 11/2016 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Page No. 5 of 5 Vs. SUNIL R. MASIH CNR No.- DLSH03-001813-2016