Jiwan Kumar Goel vs M/S. Civitech Developers Pvt. ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 2873 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 165/2014

%                                                         1st July , 2014

JIWAN KUMAR GOEL                                         ......Appellant
                          Through:       Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

M/S. CIVITECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.                        ...... Respondent
                   Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.10205/2014 (exemption)

1.           Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

             C.M. stands disposed of.

+ FAO No.165/2014

2.           Supreme Court twenty two years back in the judgment in the

case of M/s. Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. M/s. Prasad Trading

Company AIR 1992 SC 1514 clarified with respect to Section 20 of Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with its Explanation that when a suit is

filed against a company, the suit cannot be filed at the place where the
FAO No.165/2014                                                   Page 1 of 3
 registered office of the company is situated unless the cause of action

accrues at the registered office.

3.           In the present case, the appellant/plaintiff/employee was

employed at Noida in U.P. The appellant/employee worked as an employee

at Noida in U.P.      The appellant/employee was paid at Noida in U.P.

Therefore, entire cause of action accrues at Noida in U.P. and not at Delhi

where the suit was filed.

4.           Learned counsel for the appellant argues that there was no

written statement on record however it is noted that there is an application

which is filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and

which is replied to by the appellant/plaintiff. A conjoint reading of the

pleadings in this application read with Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.

Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120 leads us to the

conclusion that even the admissions in the pleadings in the interim

application can be considered for the purpose of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

5.           I did put to the counsel for the appellant that there is no reason

why appellant should be time and again burdened with expenditure whether

towards Court fee or lawyer's fee when the law has been made clear by the


FAO No.165/2014                                                    Page 2 of 3
 Supreme Court way back in the year 1992, however, counsel for the

appellant does not seem to appreciate the legal position.

6.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the

same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




JULY 01, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne