IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR MALIK ASCJ CUM

JSCC CUM GUARDIAN JUDGE SOUTH WEST DWARKA COURT

CS SCJ CIVIL SUIT NO. 779/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

KULDEEP SINGH …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

RAVISH BHATIA & ORS. …DEFEDANTS/APPLICANTS

REVIEW APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 114 AND ORDER 47

OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, AGAINST ORDER
DATED 10.01.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN
SUIT BEARING CS SCJ CIVIL SUIT NO. 779/2019, TITLED AS
“KULDEEP SINGH VERSUS RAVISH BHATIA & ORS.”

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present review application is being filed against the

impugned order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the Hon’ble
Court Judge in CS SCJ NO. 779 of 2021, titled as “Kuldeep
Singh versus Ravish Bhatia & Ors.” Whereby, the Hon’ble
Court was pleased to close the right of Defendants to file
written statement without hearing the applications, filed by
Defendants:

(i) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) and

(ii) under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code

 and fixed the present case for reply & argument on the
above filed applications.

2. It is most respectfully submitted, that the Order dated

10.01.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court suffers from vice
of perversity and error apparent on the face of record, as the
Hon’ble Court has failed to appreciate the settled law to
dispose an application of rejection of plaint filed under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the code before proceeding with the trial.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu,
2016 14 SCC 275, has held that

“-O.7 R.11 application can be filed before filing of his written

statement- Court must dispose of the application before
proceeding with trial-In case of dismissal of application
defendant is entitled to file written statement. …”

3. That the Applicant(s-) submits that however the Hon’ble

Court vide its Order dated 10.01.2023, were pleased to close
the right to file Written Statement of all of the three
Defendants, and listed the matter for reply/arguments on
both the above-stated applications.

4. That BEING AGGRIEVED AND DISSATISFIED by the Order

dated 10.01.2023, the Applicant herein has filed this
application on the following amongst grounds which are
without prejudice to and in the alternative to one another.

5. Grounds:
a. Because, the Hon’ble Court has vehemently erred in
not noticing the fact that, from the bare reading of the
Suit filed by the Plaintiff it is amply evident that the
same is liable to rejected at the very outset and lacks
merit, as the same has been filed with the malicious
intent to grab the entire constructed flats illegally and
forcibly.

b. Because, the Plaintiff has not approached the Hon’ble

Court with clean hands as in the Present case the
alleged contract was entered into between the Plaintiff
and the Defendant Company i.e., Gravity Project Pvt.
Ltd. and the Present Defendants, Ravish Bhatia and
Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhatia were not privy to any of the
terms of the contract entered between the Plaintiff and
the Defendant Company.

c. Because, it is trite in law that when the principal is

known, no suit would be maintainable against the
agent. In the present case the principal/Defendant
Company being already known to the Plaintiff, the
present suit against the answering Defendants Ravish
Bhatia and Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhatia is not
maintainable.

d. Because, there is no specific allegation/pleadings in

the entire Plaint against Ravish Bhatia and Sh. Vijay
Kumar Bhatia to show that the said Defendants had
personally undertaken or promised anything to
 Plaintiff. That in absence of any such allegation
against the said Defendants, no liability can be casted
upon them.

e. Because, it is trite in law that the liabilities of Directors

of a Company, under common law are only confined to
cases of maleficence and misfeasance wherein they
have been guilty of tort towards those whom they owe
a duty of care. In the present case at hand the
answering Defendants have neither committed any tort
against the Plaintiff nor has made any guarantee or
indemnity for the liabilities of the Defendant Company
towards the Plaintiff. Further, no case of maleficence
and misfeasance has been made out against the
answering Defendants in the entire plaint. That the
entire Plaint is devoid of any material against the
answering Defendant.

f. Because, it is trite in law that when an application

under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is pending the
Court must dispose of the application before
proceeding with the trial, and in case of dismissal of
application the Defendant is entitled to file Written
Statement.

g. Because, in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra,

(2003) 1 SCC 557, the Supreme Court has stated that
once an application is filed under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC, the court has to dispose of the same before
 proceeding with the trial. There is no point or sense in
proceeding with the trial of the case, in case the plaint
is only to be rejected at the threshold. Therefore, the
defendant is entitled to file the application for rejection
before filing his written statement. In case the
application is rejected, the defendant is entitled to file
his written statement thereafter. But once an
application for rejection is filed, the court has to
dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial
court. The Supreme court in Saleem Bhai case also
held that:

“9…a direction to file the written statement without

deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 cannot
be a procedural irregularity touching the exercise of
jurisdiction by the trial court.”

h. Because, in R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu, (2016) 14 SCC

275 the Supreme Court has held that:

“8. …Without disposing of an application under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC, the court cannot proceed with the trial.”

6. That the Applicant(s) states that in light of the aforesaid

facts and circumstances and upon the grounds stated
hereinabove, it is just and reasonable, and it would be in
the interest of justice that the said Order dated 10.01.2023
be reviewed.
 7. That the Applicant(s) states that except this no other
petition, appeal, application or review of the said Order
dated 10.01.2023 is filed or pending either in this Hon’ble
Court or any other Court.

8. That the Applicant submits that the present Review Petition

is filed within limitation period. The impugned Order was
passed on 10.01.2023.

9. Therefore, since the order dated 10.01.2023 is passed

without considering the moved applications of the
Defendant herein and the documents available on record
thus is liable to be reviewed.

PRAYER

Thus, in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is

most respectfully prayed that: -

a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to review Order dated

10.01.2023 and further be pleased to modify it to the extent
of setting aside the Order, thereby not closing the right to
file the Written Statement by the defendants until the
Applications moved under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 7
Rule 11of the Code is disposed.

b. That such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present
case be granted.
 APPLICANT(S)

THROUGH

RAJIV K. VIRMANI/AMIT KUMAR

LEXSTONE CHAMBERS
ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENDANT(S)
212, 2nd Floor, MERCHANTILE HOUSE,
15 K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI
MOB: 9289028206| Email: Contact@lexstonegroup.com
 IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR MALIK ASCJ CUM
JSCC CUM GUARDIAN JUDGE SOUTH WEST DWARKA COURT
CS SCJ CIVIL SUIT NO. 779/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

KULDEEP SINGH …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
RAVISH BHATIA & ORS. …DEFEDANTS/APPLICANTS
AFFIDAVIT

I, Sh. Ravish Bhatia s/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhatia aged about__
years, R/o 69 FF, Karuna Kunj, Dwarka Sector 3, New Delhi-
110075 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under-
1. That I am the Defendant in the above- mentioned suit and
such well conversant with the facts and circumstances of
the suit and thus is competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the present application under Section 114 and Order
47 of CPC, 1908 is drafted by my counsel under my
instructions. The content thereof has been explained over to
me in vernacular and understood by me and the contents of
the same have not been repeated herein for the sake of
brevity and the same may be read as part and parcel of the
affidavit.

DEPONENT
 VERIFICATION

Verified at Delhi on this _______that, contents of the Affidavit are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR MALIK ASCJ CUM

JSCC CUM GUARDIAN JUDGE SOUTH WEST DWARKA COURT
CS SCJ CIVIL SUIT NO. 779/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

KULDEEP SINGH …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
RAVISH BHATIA & ORS. …DEFEDANTS/APPLICANTS
AFFIDAVIT

I, Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhatia s/o Sh. Sant Ram Bhatia aged about__
years, R/o 69 FF, Karuna Kunj, Dwarka Sector 3, New Delhi-
110075 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under-
1. That I am the Defendant in the above- mentioned suit and
such well conversant with the facts and circumstances of
the suit and thus is competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the present application under Section 114 and Order
47 of CPC, 1908 is drafted by my counsel under my
instructions. The content thereof has been explained over to
me in vernacular and understood by me and the contents of
the same have not been repeated herein for the sake of
brevity and the same may be read as part and parcel of the
affidavit.
 DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at Delhi on this _______that, contents of the Affidavit are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT