GOURAV SAMSUKHA vs M/S RAJ PLASTIC

Judgment text excerpt

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 16th May, 2025 + CM(M) 1433/2023 & CM APPL. 45725/2023 GOURAV SAMSUKHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikhil Malhotra and Ms. Poorna, Advocates. versus M/S RAJ PLASTIC .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankit Tandan and Mr. Ram Kr. Soni, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Defendant has taken exception to order dated 24.08.2023 whereby his application moved under Order VII Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Mr. Nikhil Malhotra, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submits that the purchase order, in no uncertain terms, specifies that the disputes, if any, would be subject to Tirupur jurisdiction only and the plaintiff has filed the suit, merely, on the basis that his office is situated in Delhi. 3. According to him, no cause of action has taken place in Delhi. 4. This Court has seen impugned order dated 24.08.2023. It seems that the application has been disposed of, merely, for the reason that the issue of jurisdiction has already been framed by the Court and, that, therefore, such aspect would be considered, after completion of recording of evidence of the parties. 5. Any such application moved under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, which goes Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1433/2023 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:17.05.2025 16:44:02 to the very jurisdiction of the Court, needs to be decided at the first available opportunity. 6. Even if the case was at the stage of evidence, since the jurisdictional aspect needed to be answered, primarily, on the basis of the legal position and the abovesaid clause in the backdrop of the averments made in the pleadings, there was, truly speaking, no requirement of postponing the decision of the application. 7. The learned Trial