Order VII Rule 11 Cannot Be Misused To Stall Trial Nearing Completion: Delhi High Court Imposes Costs On Defendants For Frivolous Petition

❝When a suit has reached the final stage of trial, it is not open to the defendant to raise belated challenges on territorial jurisdiction by invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC❞ – Delhi High Court

In a significant judgment passed on November 10, 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected a belated attempt by the defendants to derail a commercial suit by invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC, reaffirming that procedural laws must not be misused to delay the ends of justice. The Court dismissed the petition with ₹25,000 costs, observing that it was filed with the "oblique purpose of protracting the proceedings."

The litigation arose from a commercial suit instituted by MDH Pvt Ltd, a renowned spice manufacturer with its registered office in Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, against Shree Balajee Enterprises, alleging non-payment of dues for spice consignments supplied in April 2022. Out of a total invoice of ₹1.41 crores, the defendants paid ₹96.96 lakhs, leaving an unpaid balance of ₹44.88 lakhs. Repeated reminders and a demand notice dated 06.07.2022 failed to elicit a response.

In response, the defendants filed a Written Statement on 06.05.2023 and even instituted a Counterclaim on 17.07.2023. However, after framing of issues and evidence being led by MDH, the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. They argued that since the goods were allegedly dispatched from Faridabad (not Delhi), no cause of action arose in Delhi.

The High Court, through Justice Girish Kathpalia, held that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was frivolous, belated, and intended to stall trial, especially when the case was at the final argument stage.

The Court emphasized:

“It is not a case where the plaint does not raise any cause of action… What the petitioners claim is that in Delhi, there is no cause of action.”

The Court made it clear that such a contention, even if accepted, would at best warrant return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10, not rejection under Rule 11, and hence the application itself was misconceived.

❝Defendant Who Files a Counterclaim Cannot Deny Jurisdiction❞

Justice Kathpalia was sharply critical of the duplicity of the defendants, who not only filed a Written Statement but also instituted a counterclaim in the same court they later alleged lacked jurisdiction.

“One wonders, if the defendants genuinely believed that Delhi courts have no territorial jurisdiction, why would they file a counterclaim in the same court?”

❝Delay Tactics and Abuse of Process Will Not Be Tolerated❞

The Court also found that the petitioners had repeatedly delayed proceedings, as recorded in adverse orders and delayed payment of court fees on their counterclaim. On this basis, the trial court had rightly concluded:

“The defendant has filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only to delay the trial of the present suit.”

Part Payment in Delhi Is Sufficient to Confer Jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s view that part of the cause of action did arise in Delhi, since part payments were made via RTGS to the MDH account in Kirti Nagar Branch of SBI, and the plaint clearly stated that goods were dispatched from Delhi.

Referring to coordinate bench rulings in Auto Movers v. Luminous Power and R.T. Construction v. Kotec Automotive, the Court reiterated:

“Since part-payment was made in Delhi, cause of action partly arose in Delhi, and courts in Delhi do not lack territorial jurisdiction.”

Rejection Under Order VII Rule 11 Not Allowed After Advanced Trial Stage

Justice Kathpalia relied on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in M/s Bhagya Estate Benchers Pvt. Ltd. v. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 4570/2023, where it was held:

“When the proceedings have reached such an advanced stage and the court has gone through the merits… dismissal of a suit on merits is a more appropriate course instead of rejecting a plaint at the outset.”

The Court held that since the trial was at its fag end and final arguments had already commenced, there was no legal justification for entertaining such a late-stage procedural objection.

Finding no merit in the petition and deeming it an abuse of process, the High Court concluded:

“The present petition is not just devoid of merit, but also totally frivolous, filed with oblique purposes of protracting the proceedings.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of ₹25,000, payable to MDH Pvt Ltd within one week.

Date of Decision: 10 November 2025