Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RFA(COMM) 203/2026 & CM APPL. 33944/2026
MR ANKIT GUPTA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta, Adv.
Through: Mr. Harshit Bansal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
19.05.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR J.
1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Learned District Judge (Commercial Court-02)1 on an application filed by the respondents as the defendants before the learned Commercial Court in the suit under Order VII Rule 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “the learned Commercial Court” hereinafter
11. 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., seeking rejection of the plaint.
2. The learned Commercial Court has essentially relied on certain tax invoices which, according to the learned Commercial Court, indicated that there was no cause of action in favour of the appellant. We may for this purpose reproduce para 17 to 21 of the impugned order thus:
18. From the particulars given in the invoice, it is apparent that the invoices have been issued to Ganpati Trading Company, the proprietorship of Sh. Anil Kumar Mittal. From the documents of the plaintiff, it is also apparent that the proprietorships of the defendant no.2 and his father were separate though they had the same trade name. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he has sold the goods to the proprietorship of defendant no.3.
19. The liability to pay the amount in respect of the invoices raised by the plaintiff, even if presumed to be true and correct, would have been of Sh. Anil Kumar Mittal. It is evident that the plaintiff has filed the present case against defendant no.2 and his proprietorship despite having not raised the invoices to the proprietorship of defendant no.2. The cause of action as mentioned in the plaint is not supported by the documents filed by the plaintiff. There is thus no cause of action disclosed against the defendants, Sh. Dushyant Mittal and his proprietorship.
20. The Hon’ble High Court has further observed in Gurmeet (supra) that:
10. It is a settled law that while dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments made in the application are germane and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are irrelevant at that stage. If on an entire reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is vexatious in the sense that it does not disclose any right to sue, the Court should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
21. The present case is found to be a fit case for the exercise of the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The application stands allowed. The plaint stands rejected.”
3. The fundamental ground urged by the appellant before us in this appeal is that the learned Commercial Court has erroneously noted that the aforesaid tax invoices were placed on record by the appellant. In fact, it is submitted that the tax invoices were placed on record by the respondents as the defendants in the suit.
4. Mr. Harshit Bansal, learned Counsel for the respondents, acknowledges the fact that the aforesaid tax invoices were actually part of the documents filed by him. However, he submits that these tax invoices would clearly indicate that there is no cause of action on the basis of which the appellant could maintain the suit.
5. Whatever be the impact of the tax invoices, the law in respect of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well settled. It is trite that while exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a Court cannot look outside the plaint and the documents filed with the plaint. We may refer to the following passages from the decisions in Manjula v. D.A. Srinivas[4] and Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh[5] in this regard: From Manjula “8.4. The scope and applicability of Order VII Rule 11 CPC have been discussed in detail by this Court in The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar[6], as under:
23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.8, the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman[9]. *****
8.5. A careful reading of the above provisions and decision makes it clear that rejection of a plaint under the grounds mentioned under Order VII Rule 11 is essentially determinable on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint. The plaint must disclose a cause of action; the relief claimed must be properly valued; requisite court fee must be paid; a duplicate copy must be filed; and as many copies of plaint as there are defendants must be filed after the order of the Court directing issuance of summons. Before rejecting the plaint for improper valuation or deficit court fee, the Court must grant an opportunity to the plaintiff to properly value the relief and pay the requisite court fee, failing which the plaint shall stand rejected. The time granted by the Court to value the relief and pay the court fee cannot be extended unless the plaintiff satisfies the Court that for extraordinary reasons, he was unable to do so.” From Karam Singh “15. Before we assess the correctness of the impugned orders, we must remind ourselves of the basic principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Here the defendants seek rejection of the plaint under clause (d) of Rule 11 (i.e., suit barred by law). Clause (d) makes it clear that while considering rejection of the plaintiff thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is bared by law. At this stage, the defense is not to be considered. Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint”. (Emphasis supplied)
6. In as much as the learned Commercial Court has relied upon invoices, which were not part of the plaint or the documents filed with the plaint, while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11
7. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The application of the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stands dismissed.
8. Mr. Harshit Bansal submits at this juncture that, in that event, he may be permitted to file his written statement before the learned Commercial Court along with an application for condonation of delay so that his defence is not prejudiced.
9. We can only observe that if such a written statement is filed with an application for condonation of delay, it would be considered by the Commercial Court in accordance with law.
10. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. MAY 19, 2026