EXERCISE 1

(Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, 1908)

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. …………. CIVIL JUDGE, ( Sr.Dv) at Mathura

C.S.No.-…………. of …………….

P ……………………………………………………………………………………..Plaintiff

VS

D…………………………………………………………………………….……….Defendant

An application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w section 151 of CPC

1. That the plaintiff has filed the suit purportedly for mandatory injunction against
defendant for infringement of suit patent and damages amounting for INR 1 Lakh.

2. That primarily the allegations of the plaintiff is that the defendant has infringed his
patent rights in whose research and development he has spent an amount of around
INR 3 crores (Rs 3,00,000/-) and hence is very valuable to him.

3. That as the value of the asset involved in the present case is about INR 3 crores but
still the damages asked for is only INR 1 Lakh (Rs 1,00,000/-).

4. That on bare perusal of the pleadings of the plaintiff it becomes quite clear that the
amount asked for is not sufficient for the issue involved.

5. That if that being the case of the plaintiff it is quite clear that this is a case of
undervaluation of relief claimed.

6. That it is an established principle of law that during consideration of rejection of

plaint, the court has to peruse the same and, on its perusal, it proves that it is barred by
the principle of law because of undervaluation of relief claimed.
 7. That the court should consider the aspect highlighted in the present application
because the main purpose of the provision of rejection of plain is to discourage the
litigants from coming up with frivolous and vexatious claims in order to prevent
abuse the process of court of law.

8. That the court has the authority to reject the plaint at any stage of proceedings if the
conditions of the proviso is satisfied. It is unnecessary to state that the court if
satisfied, is bound to reject the plaint as the same is mandated under Order 7 Rule 11
of CPC. And the power provided with the court under the same is inexhaustive.

9. That in the case of Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar, 1980

(1) SCC 616, it has been held that "The plaintiff is entitled to give a tentative
valuation if in spite of his genuine efforts, he is unable to make out an exact valuation,
but plaint is liable to be rejected in case of deliberate undervaluation."

10. That the present petition is bona fide and for ends of justice.

11. That the petitioner would be prejudiced if the prayer for rejection of plaint is rejected.
For ends of justice this petition be allowed.

In circumstances and the precedents mentioned above it is therefore be prayed that the
Hon’ble Court be pleased to reject the plaint as provided for under the provisions of order 7
rule 11 of CPC. And to pass any such other order as deemed fit and proper.

AFFIDAVIT

I Sri D s/o …………………., aged about XX years , by faith hindu, by profession –

business , resident of …………………………, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
follows:-

1. That I am the plaintiff of this case and as such I am fully conversant with the facts
and circumstances of the same.
2. That the statements mentioned above are true to my knowledge and belief.
Deponent

Identified by me

Advocate
 EXERCISE 2

(Letter of termination)

Dear XYZ,

I am writing to inform you that as of Dec 22 nd, ABC CO. no longer requires the services of
XYZ Co.. This letter represents ABC's formal notice of contract termination. Regretfully,
shifting budget priorities and excessive delay in delivery of products have made it impossible
for us to continue to pay for your expertise.

We greatly appreciate the business relationship we have had with you for all these years.
However, because of the shaky supply chain and the unpredictability of deliveries including
the ‘non-conformance’ of the last lot of materials, we have suffered a significant loss.
Although we made every effort to stop it, the situation nonetheless came first. Despite our
best efforts, the current predicament cannot be avoided, which is why we have decided to
discontinue this arrangement. The payment balance is being checked and will soon be settled.

However, we would still like to purchase calcium salts with you. If you think we need
another proposal, do let us know. Please feel free to contact me by phone or email if you have
any questions about the situation overall.

We also expect you to not infringe our patent rights, and not manufacture for any other
company or a third party that would result in a conflict of interest or infringement of the
rights or confidential information or know-how of ours and call upon legal implications on
yourself.

Thank you so much for understanding, it has been a pleasure working with you, and behalf of
the ABC Co., we wish you all the best in future endeavours.

Sincerely,
Quek Lee
Senior Manager
ABC Co.