M/S. ACCUFIL AUTOMATION vs CHITKARA BEVERAGES & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 02nd July, 2025 + CM(M) 1108/2025 & CM APPL. 37619-37621/2025 M/S. ACCUFIL AUTOMATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prateek Choudhary and Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advocates. versus CHITKARA BEVERAGES & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Malik, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner (defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court) is defending a suit which seeks damages to the tune of Rs.51,99,000/-. 2. The issues have already been framed and the case is at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence and it was at the abovesaid stage that the defendant No.1 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by dismissal of his such application. 4. This Court has gone through the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 and according to the observations appearing therein, the application was held as not maintainable under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the aspect which had been highlighted by the defendant No.1 in their abovesaid application could be appreciated only once the evidence was led. 5. The relevant observations in this regard are as under:- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1108/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:03.07.2025 18:12:39 “Ld. Counsel for defendant has submitted that no cause of action arose to plaintiff to file the present suit. On this account it has been stated that no written agreement was executed between both parties qua which plaintiff could claim liquidated damages as claim in the present suit. It has been further submitted that plaintiff has failed to link the claim with act of defendant. It has been further submitted that plaintiff