In M/s Shree Balajee Enterprises & Anr. v. M/s Mahashian Di Hatti (MDH) Pvt. Ltd., CM(M) 926/2025, decided on 10.11.2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 challenging the trial court’s refusal to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a commercial suit for recovery. The Court held that an objection to territorial jurisdiction cannot lead to rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 but only its return under Order VII Rule 10 CPC if found lacking. It observed that since part payment was made in Delhi and goods were dispatched from the plaintiff’s registered office at Kirti Nagar, a part of the cause of action arose within Delhi. Relying on Auto Movers v. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and RT Construction v. Kotec Automotive Services, the Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s order and noted that the belated application, filed after trial had substantially concluded, was a dilatory tactic. The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction — Held, while the court must consider the content of the application, if the plaint raises a cause of action, even if disputed, the consequence of failure to prove jurisdiction would be return of plaint, not rejection. (Para 5)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 vs Order 7 Rule 10 CPC — Petitioners sought rejection of plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, rather than return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. Held, the court must examine the substance of the application and relief sought, not just the provision invoked. (Para 5)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 CPC — Evidence Act, 1872 — Admissibility of documents — Bank certificates relied upon by the trial court were permissible to be taken on record, even if filed after the plaint, as the same were crucial to establish territorial jurisdiction. The court considered the date of the bank certificate and the stage of proceedings before allowing it, finding reasonable cause for its late filing. (Para 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 CPC — Territorial Jurisdiction — Part payment in Delhi — Where the plaintiff’s registered office is in Delhi and part payment was made to the plaintiff’s Delhi account, a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, conferring territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi courts. (Para 7)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 CPC — Stage of Proceedings — Late filing of application — An application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed at an advanced stage of trial, after evidence has been led and the matter is at final arguments, is generally not entertained as it defeats the purpose of the provision and leads to wastage of court resources. The Supreme Court held that at such stage, dismissal on merits is more appropriate. (Para 10, 10.1, 10.2)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 CPC — Delay tactics — Filing of Counterclaim in the same court despite disputing territorial jurisdiction suggests that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed to delay the proceedings rather than for a genuine lack of jurisdiction. (Para 10.4)
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Revisionary Jurisdiction — High Court declined to intervene under Article 227 when the trial court’s order was found to be without infirmity and not perverse, and the petition was deemed frivolous and filed with oblique motives to protract proceedings. (Para 11)
Case Name : M/s Shree Balajee Enterprises & Anr. v. M/s Mahashian Di Hatti (MDH) Pvt. Ltd., decided on 10-11-2025