Delhi High Court on Territorial Jurisdiction and Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Late-Stage Rejection Not Permissible.

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the trial court’s rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that such an application cannot be entertained at an advanced stage of trial when issues have already been framed. The Court observed that the appropriate remedy in such circumstances would be under Order VII Rule 10 CPC (return of plaint for lack of jurisdiction), not rejection of plaint. Since part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi — where payments were made and the plaintiff’s registered office was located — the plaint could not be rejected.

• The respondent, M/s Mahashian Di Hatti (MDH) Pvt. Ltd., filed a recovery suit for ₹44,88,637.03 against the petitioners for unpaid dues arising from spice supplies made in April 2022.

• The petitioners admitted payment of ₹96,96,252.97 but disputed the balance and claimed that the Delhi court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the goods were dispatched from Faridabad.

• The trial court had framed issues, including one on territorial jurisdiction, and took on record an SBI certificate (dated 2025) confirming receipt of payments in Delhi.

• The petitioners later moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, arguing that no cause of action arose in Delhi and that the bank certificate was wrongly accepted.

• The Court held that since issues had already been framed, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was not maintainable; any jurisdictional objection should have been raised earlier under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

• Receipt of payments in Delhi and the plaintiff’s registered office being situated there constituted a part of the cause of action within Delhi’s jurisdiction.

• The trial court rightly took on record the bank certificate, as it merely confirmed facts relevant to an already existing issue and was produced after the suit’s filing.

• Filing the application at such a late stage was seen as a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings.

• The Court referred to M/s Bhagya Estate Benchers Pvt. Ltd. v. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2024) to emphasize that Order VII Rule 11 cannot be invoked after substantial progress in the trial.

• The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000, the Court terming it frivolous and intended to delay the suit.

• The trial court’s decision to proceed with the matter was upheld.

• Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Rejection of plaint.

• Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Return of plaint.

• Article 227, Constitution of India – Supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts.

• Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Applicability to commercial disputes.

Citation: 2025:DHC:CM(M)926

Case: M/s Shree Balajee Enterprises & Anr. v. M/s Mahashian Di Hatti (MDH) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia

Date of Decision: 10 November 2025

CM(M) No.: 926 of 2025