HANUMAN PRASAD SHARMA @ H.P. SHARMA vs J. MITHYLESHWAR

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 13.02.2026 Pronounced on : 25.03.2026 Uploaded on : 25.03.2026 + FAO 290/2022 HANUMAN PRASAD SHARMA @ H.P. SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Mridul Jain and Ms. Ruby Sharma, Advocates versus J. MITHYLESHWAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Rattu, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.07.2022, whereby the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order VII Rule 10 CPC came to be allowed. 2. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant preferred the underlying civil suit for recovery of Rs.10 lacs along with interest, claiming that he had provided a friendly loan of Rs.10 lacs to the respondent. It was averred that the said sum was transferred from the appellant’s account maintained with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Savita Vihar Branch, Delhi. The appellant had further claimed that towards discharge of its liability to pay the said amount, the respondent had issued cheque no. 000072 dated 03.03.2016 for Rs.10 lacs Signature Not Verified FAO 290/2022 Page 1 of 6 Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:25.03.2026 16:55:20 drawn on HDFC Bank, Bellari Branch, Karnataka. The said cheque, when presented by the appellant at his bank in Delhi, got dishonoured. Claiming jurisdiction at Delhi, the appellant had sought recovery of the aforesaid amount. 3. While contesting the impugned order, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the Trial Court erred in allowing the respondent’s application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC without appreciating that the respondent had not taken any objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court in the writt