Delhi High Court
Jai Prakash Dwivedi vs Hirise Facility Management ... on 2 February, 2023
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000865
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 02.02.2023
+ CM(M) 146/2023 & CM APPL. No.4397-99/2023
JAI PRAKASH DWIVEDI ..... Petitioner
versus
HIRISE FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT LTD & ANR
..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Mansi Bajaj and Ms. Nidhi Tyagi,
Advocates.
For the Respondent :
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2022 in CS
(COMM) 637/2022 titled "Jai Prakash Dwivedi vs. Hirise Facility
Management Ltd. & Ors.," whereby the learned Trial Court had directed
the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be presented
before the Court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that there was
no territorial jurisdiction available with it.
2. Ms. Mansi Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though the petitioner is not challenging the return of the plaint, however,
is aggrieved by the cost of Rs.50,000/- that was imposed by the learned
Trial Court, simultaneously while returning the plaint to be presented
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
16:55:22
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000865
before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
3. Ms. Bajaj submits that the suit was withdrawn voluntarily by the
petitioner to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction and
imposing of such cost is not only harsh but also onerous on the
petitioner.
4. Ms. Bajaj also submits that imposition of such cost may be not
appropriate in the fact and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the
petitioner/plaintiff had been diligently following his case on the
assumption that the Court had territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
the lis.
5. After having heard the learned counsel and perusing the
impugned order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
imposition of such cost upon the petitioner appears to be in the nature of
a penalty which is unsustainable in law for the reason that any party may
make a genuine mistake in pursuing its remedies in a particular Court of
law on the assumption that the learned Court has the proper territorial
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis.
6. In that view of the matter, the cost of Rs.50,000/- as directed to be
paid to each of the respondents-defendants vide the impugned order
dated 17.11.2022 is quashed and set aside to that extent alone.
7. The impugned order, insofar as other aspects are concerned,
remains untouched.
8. Accordingly, the petition alongwith pending applications stands
disposed of with no order as to cost.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J .
FEBRUARY 2, 2023/Aj
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
16:55:22
