MS SUJATA CHANDRA vs RAM PRAKASH & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23.05.2025 + C.R.P. 87/2023, CM APPL. 16461/2023 MS SUJATA CHANDRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sameer Kumar, Mr. Vaibhav Pachauri, Advs. versus RAM PRAKASH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Desh Raj, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Vineet Hans, Adv. for R-2 & 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. This Court had on the last date of hearing passed a detailed order and recorded the following: “1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking to challenge an order dated 12.01.2023 passed by Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’]. By the Impugned Order, an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the Petitioner (Defendant before the learned Trial Court) has been dismissed. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity. Learned Counsel submits that the cause of action in the plaint filed by the Respondents (Plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court), arose at Babarpur Branch of Punjab & Sindh Bank and that the Court at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition. 2.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to rely upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading Co.; (1991) 4 SCC 270 and on a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Saha vs Hindustan Media Ventrues Ltd. & Ors.; (2017) SCC OnLine Del 8970, to submit that where the company/corporation has its principal office at one place and subordinate office at another place and cause of action arises at the plac