Delhi High Court
Piyush Devbrat vs M/S Ergo Creative Solution Pvt. ... on 13 September, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.429/2015
% 13th September, 2017
PIYUSH DEVBRAT ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Advocate
with Mr. Dibya Nishant,
Advocate and Mr. Pallav
Kumar, Advocate.
versus
M/s ERGO CREATIVE SOLUTION PVT. LTD. & ORS.
..... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the order of the trial
court dated 4.9.2015 by which trial court has returned the plaint under
Order VII Rule 10 CPC for being filed in the court of correct
territorial jurisdiction. The plaint has been returned at the initial stage
of filing of the suit when summons were not yet issued to the
defendants. The subject suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for
recovery of a sum of Rs.8,92,650/-, essentially being the arrears of
salary payable by the respondents/defendants towards employment of
the appellant/plaintiff. Salary has been claimed from the month of
April, 2014 to the month of September, 2014. Appellant/plaintiff has
also claimed certain further amounts from the respondents/defendants
towards the rented accommodation etc. Cause of action for filing of
the subject suit was that the appellant/plaintiff claimed that he was
appointed as the Regional Manager of North to be based in Delhi for
looking after the business of the respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant
nos.1 and 2 and which companies were engaged in the business of
furniture and interior items related trading. As per the
appellant/plaintiff, he received an offer letter dated 12.10.2013 and
which wrongly talked of appellant/plaintiff being based in Mumbai,
and which could not have been so because the appellant/plaintiff was
appointed as Regional Manager for North. The appellant/plaintiff
pleads that the respondents/defendants vide its e-mail dated
11.12.2013 realizing the mistake corrected the offer letter with respect
to the appellant/plaintiff for being based at Delhi as Regional Manager
and not at Mumbai. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that his services
were wrongly terminated and he was not paid salary for the period he
worked and therefore the subject suit came to be filed.
2. Since the impugned order is a short order, the same is
reproduced as under:-
"Arguments on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. Record perused.
It is submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the cause of action arose
within the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, this court is having territorial
jurisdiction.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery against defendants.
None of the defendants is residing or working for gain within the
jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, this court does not have territorial
jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 20(a) and (b) of CPC.
It is submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that cause of action arose in Delhi
when the plaintiff met various company official in Delhi for promotion of
the products of the defendants. The plaintiff is claiming that defendants
have asked him to handle the business of the plaintiff company and the
plaintiff was offered the position of Regional Manager, North Human Scale
vide offer letter dated 10.12.13. That the said offer letter provided that
plaintiff would be based in Mumbai instead of Delhi. The plaintiff is
seeking the recovery of his monthly salary against defendants being their
employee.
The clause C of Section 20 provides that the suit may be filed where the
cause of action or part of cause of action arose. The meeting of the plaintiff
with the customer of the defendants at Delhi does not come within the
meaning of cause of action or part cause of action. The cause of action
should relate to the claim filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the
present claim for recovery of his monthly salary against defendant company
which is situated outside the jurisdiction of this court.
In the present facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that
neither the cause of action nor part of cause of action has arose within
jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, plaint filed by the plaintiff is
returned under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, to be filed in the
court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter. The certificate
of return of the plaint be issued.
File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities."
(underlining added)
3. A reference to the impugned order shows that the trial
court has committed an error in referring to the term of being based at
Mumbai in the letter of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 dated
10.12.2013 and not referring to the subsequent e-mail dated
11.12.2013 showing the basing of the appellant/plaintiff at Delhi, and
which e-mail along with relevant facts are duly mentioned in para 3 of
the plaint.
4. In contractual matters those courts which would have
jurisdiction where the contract is executed, where the contract has to
be performed or where payment under the contract has to be made
vide A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem AIR
1989 SC 1239. Since in the present case performance of the contract
was to be including at Delhi, and which is logical because
appellant/plaintiff was appointed as a Regional Manager for North,
hence part of cause of action will arise at Delhi. Civil courts at Delhi,
therefore, as per the averments of the plaint, and which only at this
stage can be looked at, would have territorial jurisdiction.
5. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed
and the impugned order dated 4.9.2015 is set aside. It is held that at
the stage of filing of the plaint, and considering that the averments
only in the plaint are to be looked at, the civil courts at Delhi would
have territorial jurisdiction, subject to this issue being otherwise
finally decided in the suit.
6. Appellant/plaintiff will appear before the District and
Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 23rd October, 2017
and the District and Sessions Judge will mark the suit for disposal to a
competent court in accordance with law. Trial court will issue
summons in the suit to the respondents/defendants and thereafter
proceed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
