KRISHAN KUMAR MISHRA vs ANNU GOYAL

Judgment text excerpt

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18th July, 2025 + CM(M) 1266/2025 & CM APPL. 42510-42511/2025 KRISHAN KUMAR MISHRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Rathi, Mr. Deepak K., Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Mr. Sanchit J. and Ms. Aakansha Solanki, Advocates. versus ANNU GOYAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ritik Sharma, Mr. Himanshu, Mr. Ghanshyam Dass Sharma, Mr. Suraj Kumar Jaiswal and Mr. Deepanshu, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a suit which seeks possession and recovery of arrears of rents/mesne profits. 2. According to defendant, when the defendant appeared before the learned Trial Court on 25.04.2025, he was, though, granted time to file written statement within 30 days, the Court made some oral inquiry from the defendant and since the defendant admitted the rate of rent to be Rs.1.3 lacs per month, learned Trial Court passed an order under Order XVA CPC, then and there. 3. The grievance of the petitioner herein, however, is little different. 4. It is submitted that immediately, thereafter, the defendant moved an Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1266/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:21.07.2025 14:31:33 application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC clearly mentioning therein that the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction as the suit was involving a commercial dispute. 5. However, the abovesaid application has, rather, been deferred for 04.09.2025 and there is direction to defendant to comply with the abovesaid order passed under Order XVA CPC. 6. When asked, Mr. Rathi learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, defendant would file written statement before the learned Trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for re