Stand Of Defendant Irrelevant When Court Is Dealing With Application Under Order VII Rule 11 Of CPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case where the Court is dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant.

Adding that what is required to be looked into is the averments and documents filed alongwith the plaint, Justice Asha Menon observed thus:

"When the court is dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is required to look at the averments in the plaint and plaint alone. The documents filed alongwith the plaint can also be considered. However, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant."

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by the defendant to a Commercial Court against Trial Court orders dated 15th December, 2021, dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant for rejection of the suit as there was no cause of action.

The respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner (defendant) from infringing it's copyright with further directions of delivery up, damages and rendition of accounts.

The respondent was the proprietor of M/s Capital Enterprises and claimed to be carrying on an old, established and reputed business of manufacturing and trading in socks etc. In the suit, it was claimed by the plaintiff that he had adopted the trade mark/logo "R.D. Special‟ in the year 1994.

It was claimed that the plaintiff had applied for registration of the logo in respect of socks and other goods included in class 25. It was also claimed that an artistic packaging was created in the year 1994 which was an original artwork and thus, the plaintiff was the owner of the copyright in the same.

The suit was filed alleging that in the last week of July, 2021, the plaintiff had came to know that the petitioner defendant had filed an application for registration of a deceptively similar logo and packaging in respect of socks in class 25 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, claiming the use of the impugned logo and packaging since 1st January, 2019.

Vide the impugned order dated 15th December, 2021, two applications were disposed of, one under Order VII Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner defendant for return of the plaint as the courts in Delhi had no jurisdiction, and another under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of the plaint.

The Court was of the view that it has to consider whether the impugned order was passed by the Trial Court within the bounds of its authority and whether there was any perversity or unreasonableness in the impugned order resulting in miscarriage of justice.

The Court thus observed that when the court is dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is required to look at the averments in the plaint and plaint alone. While the documents filed alongwith the plaint can also be considered, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant, the Court added.

"Thus, the Trial Court would be justified in putting an end to vexatious, frivolous, meaningless and sham litigation. But this power may be exercised only where the plaint clearly discloses no cause of action or any of the other grounds contained in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are made out and not otherwise. This is so as the consequences of such exercise of power are immediate and decisive and shuts the door of the court firmly upon a plaintiff who ostensibly approached it for legal remedy," the Court observed.

The Court further noted that from the averments made in the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC filed by the petitioner defendant, it was apparent that she had pleaded her defence to seek a dismissal of the suit, rather than a rejection of the same.

"When the pleas raised by the petitioner/defendant to repel the claims of the respondent/plaintiff cannot be considered at this stage, the learned Trial Court was right in observing that the questions raised by the petitioner/defendant being one of facts, would require trial. An appropriate issue regarding the existence and non-existence of the cause of action, amongst other issues can also be framed to be disposed of together, after evidence is recorded," the Court added.

Accordingly, finding no error or perversity in the decision of the Trial Court, the Court refused to interfere with the same exercising powers under Article 227.

The plea was thus dismissed.

Title: PUJA AGGARWAL v. PRAVESH NARULA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 251

Click Here To Read Order