Delhi High Court
Ms Sujata Chandra vs Ram Prakash & Ors on 23 May, 2025
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 23.05.2025
+ C.R.P. 87/2023, CM APPL. 16461/2023
MS SUJATA CHANDRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sameer Kumar, Mr. Vaibhav
Pachauri, Advs.
versus
RAM PRAKASH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Desh Raj, Adv. for R-1
Mr. Vineet Hans, Adv. for R-2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
1. This Court had on the last date of hearing passed a detailed order and
recorded the following:
"1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') seeking to challenge an order dated 12.01.2023
passed by Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to
as 'Impugned Order']. By the Impugned Order, an Application under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the Petitioner (Defendant before the learned
Trial Court) has been dismissed.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Impugned Order
suffers from an infirmity. Learned Counsel submits that the cause of action
in the plaint filed by the Respondents (Plaintiffs before the learned Trial
Court), arose at Babarpur Branch of Punjab & Sindh Bank and that the
Court at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi would have the territorial jurisdiction
to entertain the present Petition.
2.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to rely upon a judgment passed
by the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading
Co.; (1991) 4 SCC 270 and on a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Saha vs Hindustan
Media Ventrues Ltd. & Ors.; (2017) SCC OnLine Del 8970, to submit that
where the company/corporation has its principal office at one place and
subordinate office at another place and cause of action arises at the place
where the subordinate office is located, then the suit has to be filed only in
the court within whose jurisdiction the company/corporation has its
subordinate office and not in court within whose jurisdiction the company/
corporate has its principal office.
2.2 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the only explanation
given by the Respondents/Plaintiffs in the plaint in this regard is that the
Head Office of the Respondent/Bank is at Rajendra Place, Delhi, thus, the
District Courts at Tis Hazari would have the territorial jurisdiction in the
matter...."
2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 relying upon a judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Roadways Limited,
Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company1 fairly submits that the learned Trial
Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
2.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that he will be
moving an appropriate Application before the learned Trial Court in this
behalf.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the
statement made by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, nothing
further survives in the present Petition and that the present Petition may be
disposed of in view of the statement made by Respondent No.1.
4. The present Petition is accordingly disposed of in view of the
aforegoing. The pending Application also stands closed.
5. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to approach the Court in
the event the Respondents do not follow through.
6. The parties shall act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MAY 23, 2025/jn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
(1991) 4 SCC 270
