PETER A FERNANDES vs O P MANCHANDA & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 06th May, 2025 + CM(M) 859/2025 & CM APPL. 27548-27549/2025 PETER A FERNANDES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Mr. Mr. Nimish Kumar, Mr. Shivangi Shokeen, Mr. Narender Kumar, Mr. Akshaya Kumar and Mr. Alok Lakhanpal, Advocates. versus O P MANCHANDA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Himanshu Bajaj with Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a suit which is commercial in nature. 2. The case is already at the stage of final arguments. 3. After completion of evidence, the defendant/petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return or, in alternate, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. 4. Indubitably, though any such application can be moved at any stage of the case, when the case is already at the stage of final arguments and all these aspects can be taken care of by any Trial Court while considering final arguments, actually speaking, there is no real requirement of moving any such application as it only multiplies the work of the Court, unnecessarily. 5. Be that as it may, after hearing arguments for some time, learned Senior Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 859/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:07.05.2025 15:56:48 Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that he does not press the present petition. He, however, supplements that when the abovesaid application seeking return/rejection of the plaint had been moved, the defendant had made reference to various other contentions which perhaps, have escaped the attention of the learned Trial Court as there is no discussion with respect to such contentions m