Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 07.05.2025 vs M/S Megha Engineering Infrastructure on 19 May, 2025
2025:HHC:14462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
OMP No.103 of 2024
In
CS No.49 of 2023
Reserved on: 07.05.2025
Decided on: 19.05.2025
Rohit Sood ….Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Megha Engineering Infrastructure
Ltd. & another …Defendants
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the plaintiff: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate.
For the defendants: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur & Mr. Manik
Sethi, Advocate.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge
This application has been filed by the defendants
with a prayer to reject the plaint on the grounds firstly, that it
does not disclose any cause of action, secondly, the plaint is
barred by law and thirdly, the plaint has been filed in a Court
having no territorial jurisdiction.
2
2. It is averred that the plaint filed by the plaintiff is
without jurisdiction having been filed in a wrong forum with
inherit lack of jurisdiction as the nature of dispute raised by
the plaintiff makes it a commercial dispute under Section 2(c)
of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and for such reasons the
plaint could not have been instituted in this Court. The plaint
is also alleged to be without disclosure of cause of action.
The defendants have further alleged that the suit is barred by
law of limitation. Further it has been stated that the parties
have agreed by way of an agreement that all interse disputes
arising between them from the work order awarded to the
plaintiff by defendants shall be subject only to jurisdiction of
Courts at Hyderabad.
3. It has also been claimed in the application that
the defendants have made full and final payment of all dues
to the plaintiff, who has already issued “no claim certificate”
and “no market liability certificate” in favour of the defendant
on 08.05.2019. The plaintiff is alleged to have admitted such
fact in the plaint. The defendants have further claimed to
have released the security/retention amount in favour of the
plaintiff on 12.07.2019.
3
4. The defendants have also submitted in the
application that the work awarded to the plaintiff had come to
an end on 05.10.2018 and the plaintiff was required to make
full and final settlement. As per work order dated 11.07.2012
and its subsequent amendments, the plaintiff had submitted
his invoices/bills on the basis of minimum wages notified by
the State Government of Himachal Pradesh from August
2014 to October 2018. The defendants have already
honoured the commitment as per minutes of meeting dated
24.10.2018 and have released the retention money/security
amount to the plaintiff.
5. The application has been resisted and contested
by the plaintiff.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the record carefully.
7. It is more than settled that while deciding
application for rejection of plaint on the grounds that the
plaint is without cause of action or/and barred by law, the
Court is required to look into the contents of the plaint only
and nothing else. At such stage, the defence raised by the
defendant(s) or any other material becomes irrelevant. In
4
Saleem Bhai & others vs. State of Maharashtra & others,
(2003) 1 SCC 557, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
under:
“9. A perusal of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to
be looked into for deciding an application thereunder
are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can
exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at
any stage of the suit-before registering the plaint or
after issuing summons to the defendant at any time
before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of
deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of
Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. the averments in the
plaint are germane……..”
8. In addition to the contents of plaint, glance and
perusal of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff along
with plaint is also permitted. A reference in this regard can be
made to paragraphs 23.6, 23.7 and 23.8 of the judgment
passed in Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali
(Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives & others,
(2020) 7 SCC 366:
“23.6 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on
the Court to determine whether the plaint
discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the
averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with
5the documents relied upon, or whether the suit
is barred by any law.
23.7 Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for
production of documents, on which the plaintiff
places reliance in his suit, which reads as
under :
“Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document
on which plaintiff sues or relies.- (1)Where
a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies
upon document in his possession or power
in support of his claim, he shall enter such
documents in a list, and shall produce it in
Court when the plaint is presented by him
and shall, at 2 Liverpool & London S.P. & I
Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr.,
(2004) 9 SCC 512. the same time deliver
the document and a copy thereof, to be
filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in
the possession or power of the plaintiff, he
shall, wherever possible, state in whose
possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be
produced in Court by the plaintiff when the
plaint is presented, or to be entered in the
list to be added or annexed to the plaint but
is not produced or entered accordingly,
shall not, without the leave of the Court, be
received in evidence on his behalf at the
hearing of the suit.
6
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to
document produced for the cross
examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or,
handed over to a witness merely to refresh
his memory.”
(emphasis supplied)
23.8 Having regard to Order VII Rule 14
CPC, the documents filed alongwith the plaint,
are required to be taken into consideration for
deciding the application under Order VII Rule
11 (a). When a document referred to in the
plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be
treated as a part of the plaint.”
9. In light of above exposition, a brief scan of the
contents of plaint and documents filed therewith, becomes
necessary.
9.1 The plaintiff has sought decree for a sum of
Rs.10,45,98,362/- against the defendants along with interest
at the rate of 15% per annum from the date when the amount
became due till its realization. It is sated in the plaint that the
plaintiff was a contractor and the defendants had undertaken
the civil construction work of “Lambadug Hydro Power
Project” (for short the ‘LHEP’). The defendants vide work
order dated 11.07.2012 had awarded to plaintiff the work of
supply of technical staff and labour for above sated civil
7
construction work. The work order was amended twice on
08.11.2013 and 01.07.2015.
9.2 The plaintiff has alleged that he provided the
technical staff and labour to the defendants as per work
orders, but the defendants did not release the payments in
terms thereof. According to the plaintiff, the rates of wages
payable to the technical staff and labour (category-wise)
were settled in the work order itself, but the defendants
started insisting to pay the amount to the plaintiff as per the
minimum wages fixed by the State Government under the
9.3 It has also been averred in the plaint that the
plaintiff made repeated requests for release of payments in
terms of work order by way of communications dated
04.11.2012, 05.01.2013 and 04.05.2013. In addition, a
meeting was also held at the site office between the plaintiff
and the representatives of defendants and it was specifically
agreed that the payments would be released to the plaintiff in
accordance with work order and any difference in the
payments or the bills would be released at the completion of
work.
8
9.4 It is also the case of the plaintiff that the
defendants having superior position under the work order
had coerced the plaintiff to submit the bills as per the
minimum wages notified by the State Government.
Accordingly, the plaintiff had to do so in order to ensure
payment of timely wages to the workmen employed at the
site of the defendants.
9.5 The plaintiff is alleged to have repeatedly
requested the defendants for release of payments in terms of
work order and for such purpose repeated communications
dated 16.06.2014, 07.08.2015, 10.11.2016, 20.06.2018 and
18.08.2018 were made. The defendants abruptly brought an
end to the work order vide communication dated 05.10.2018.
9.6 The plaintiff immediately thereafter by e-mail
dated 08.10.2013 submitted the details of difference in the
payment of labour amounting to Rs.6.50 crores to the
defendants, besides various other payments which were due
and payable to the plaintiff at that stage. The plaintiff
received email dated 10.10.2018 from the defendants
stating, inter alia, that the claims mentioned at Serial No.1 to
5 of communication dated 08.10.2018 were being verified. As
9
regards claims at Serial No.6 to 9 it was informed that those
were to be calculated by the defendants and were further
promised to be paid at time of full and final settlement.
9.7 In respect of claim No.10 pertaining to difference
in payment of wages, the defendants asked the plaintiff to
submit the supporting documents within two days. A joint
meeting was held on 24.10.2018 between the plaintiff and
the defendants and an agreement with respect to various
claims of the plaintiff was arrived at in following manner:
Sr. No. Amount claimed by Amount agreed to
the plaintiff be paid in the
meeting dated
24.10.2018
1. 3,60,445/- 1,38,496
2. 5,99,332/- 3,00,000
3. 34,01,435/- Amount not settled
4. 6,75,888/- 6,75,888
5. 80,86,491/- Retrenchment
period to be
considered for 15
days for every
completed year of
service of workers.
Other benefits like
gratuity, leave
encashment to be
paid as per rules.
6. 2,51,776/- To be paid as per
actuals.
10
7. 4,90,143/- To be paid as per
actuals.
8. 18,38,805/- Arrears to be
released
9. 5,65,265/- To be paid as per
the Government
orders.
10. 6.50 crores To be settled in due
course of time and
settled amount be
released thereafter.
11. Work done To be issued by the
certificate defendants.
12. Work completion To be issued as per
certificate request of plaintiff.
13. Medical expenses Defendants agreed
and disability claim to settle all claims
of Sh. Jagar Nath of Sh. Jagar Nath.
14. Wages to be paid Wages were
till final settlement agreed to be paid
till 6.10.2018 and
basic pay to be
released till
26.10.2018
9.8 The plaintiff thereafter allegedly submitted full and
final bills as per the minutes of the meeting dated
24.10.2018. The defendants released an amount of
Rs.3,51,166/- in favour of plaintiff on 28.02.2019 but for
release of retention money/ security amount of Rs.6,75,888/-,
the defendants demanded no claim certificate and no market
liability certificate from the defendants.
11
9.9 The plaintiff is stated to have issued no market
certificate and no claim certificate on 08.05.2019 subject to
his subsisting claim as mentioned at Serial No.10 of the
above tabulated information. The retention money/security
amount was released to the plaintiff on 12.07.2019
9.10 The plaintiff issued reminder dated 27.11.2019
with a request to the defendants to release the payment and
settle the issue for once and all, which was followed by
another email dated 21.12.2020, but the defendants vide
communication (email dated 23.12.2020) refused and denied
of being liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff.
9.11 Thereafter, the plaintiff sought redressal of his
grievance by invoking the provision under the MSME Act.
The matter was referred to the Arbitrator, but the defendants
challenged the jurisdiction of the authorities under the MSME
14Act by filing CWP No.4564 of 2022 before this Court. The
said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated
12.01.2023 by this Court. The Special Leave Petition
No.9500 of 2023 filed by the plaintiff against the judgment
dated 12.1.2023 of this Court was also dismissed vide
judgment dated 08.05.2023. 14
12
10. On the basis of above facts, the plaintiff has
formed the cause of action for filing the instant suit.
10.1 To ascertain whether the plaint discloses cause of
action, the following principle needs to be kept in mind:
(a) In Swamy Atmananda and others vs. Sri
Ramakrishna Tapovanam and others, (2005) 10 SCC 51,
the principle has been concluded as under:
“A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which,
if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to
prove in order to support his right to a judgment of
the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which
taken with the law applicable to them gives the
plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must
include some act done by the defendant since in the
absence of such an act no cause of action can
possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual
infringement of the right sued on but includes all the
material facts on which it is founded.”
(b) In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & others vs.
Assistant Charity Commissioner & others (2004) 3 SCC
137, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“15. There cannot be any compartmentalization,
dissection, segregation and inversions of the
language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such
a course is adopted it would run counter to the
cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a
13pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its
true import. It is not permissible to cull out a
sentence or a passage and to read it out of the
context in isolation. Although it is the substance and
not merely the form that has to be looked into, the
pleading has to be construed as it stands without
addition or subtraction or words or change of its
apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the
party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the
tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At
the same time it should be borne in mind that no
pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat
justice on hair- splitting technicalities.”
11. Coming to the facts of the case, the plaint
specifically mentions about the work order issued by the
defendants in favour of plaintiff on 11.07.2012 with its
amendments dated 08.11.2013 and 01.07.2015. The work
order was with respect to the supply of technical staff and
labour by plaintiff to defendants for their civil works of LHEP.
14The suit amount as claimed by the plaintiff by way of
instant suit, is the difference of the sum actually paid as
wages of the technical staff and labour supplied by the
plaintiff and the sum that ought to have been paid in terms of
the work order(s). The plaintiff has contended that the
amount to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff under the
14
work order(s) was specified, but the defendants had paid
less amount as per the minimum wages fixed by the State
Government under the Minimum Wages Act. This has been
seen as a breach of contract by the plaintiff. As per
averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff had been
repeatedly demanding the amount from the defendants in
terms of the work order, but he was forced under the
circumstances to accept the amount as offered by
defendants. The plaintiff has also pleaded that the
defendants in a joint meeting dated 24.10.2018 had agreed
to settle the claim of the plaintiff in due course and to release
the amount thereafter. According to the plaintiff, the
defendants did not honour the commitment made on
24.10.2018. The denial to pay the amount, as per the
plaintiff, came from the side of defendants vide
communication dated 23.12.2020.
12. In this manner the plaintiff has asserted his right
to suit amount and the denial of corresponding obligation by
the defendants. In the case in hand, it cannot be said that the
plaint does not disclose any cause of action on the face of it.
For the purpose of cause of action, the prospects of success
15
in getting the relief are not relevant. The cause of action is to
be assessed from the point of view raised by the plaintiff and
such point should be prima facie sufficient for the Court to
take cognizance. Order VII, Rule 1(e) provides that plaint
shall contained the facts constituting the case of action and
when it arose. There is no provision which mandates the
pleadings to be made in a particular manner. Thus, it cannot
be said that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.
13. The plaintiff has filed along with the plaint, copies
of documents on which he has placed reliance. Copies of
work order dated 11.07.2012 and amendments caused to it
on 08.11.2013 and 01.07.2015 and copies of
correspondence made by the plaintiff to the defendants on
04.11.2012, 05.01.2013 and 04.05.2013 are on record.
Similarly, a copy of minutes of joint meeting held on
24.10.2018 is also filed with the plaint. A copy of email dated
23.12.2020 sent by the defendants to the plaintiff also finds
place in the documents filed along with the plaint and as per
this document, the defendants had communicated to the
plaintiff that the payments were already made to him as per
actual work done at spot and the defendants were under no
16
further liability towards the plaintiff. The averments made in
the plaint are subject to proof in accordance with law. At this
stage, the veracity or evidentiary value thereof cannot be
ascertained or adjudicated upon.
14. This Court is not oblivious to its duty to see that
the averments in the plaint are not such, that attempts to
create an illusion of cause of action. Reference can be made
to exposition of law in T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal and
another, (1977) 4 SCC 467; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & others
vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & others (2004) 3 SCC
137; Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal,
(2017) 13 SCC 17 and Ramisetty Venkattanna Vs Nasyam
Jamal Saheb 2023 SCC Online SC 521.
15. As noticed above, the facts set out in the plaint
have the support of the documents relied upon by the
plaintiff. There is nothing to suggest at this stage that the
contents of plaint or the documents relied upon by the
plaintiff are fabricated or manufactured. The cause of action
prima facie appears to be based on factual position; as also
can be seen from the contents of application filed by the
defendants for rejection of plaint, wherein the defendants
17
have admitted the award of work to the plaintiff vide work
order dated 11.07.2012. It has also been stated that the
plaintiff had submitted his invoices/bills based on minimum
wages notified by the State Government for the period
between August 2014 to October 2018.
16. For the purpose of limitation, it has been stated in
the plaint that the last payment was made to the plaintiff on
12.07.2019. The defendants sought documents from the
plaintiff vide email dated 23.12.2020. Thereafter, the matter
was sub-judice before the Arbitrator, this Court and Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Further, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded
that the defendants had assured the plaintiff to settle the
accounts in the end. It will be relevant to extract the following
averments from para-7 of the plaint:
“…The requests were made by the plaintiffs on
4.11.2012, 5.1.2013 and 4.5.2013. In the letter
dated 4.5.2013, it was yet again pointed out that
even as per the earlier communications addressed
to the defendants and the meeting held at the site
office between the parties, it was specifically agreed
that the payments would be released to the plaintiff
in accordance with the work order and any
difference in the payments or the bills, the
payments would be released at the completion of
the work…”
18
17. The plaint discloses that the work order came to
an end on 05.10.2018, meaning thereby that according to the
plaintiff at that stage, the plaintiff was entitled for settlement
of accounts. As noticed above, on 24.10.2018 there was a
joint meeting inter se the parties and the issue of balance
payment, if any, to the plaintiff by the defendants, on account
of difference between the actual payments made and as
claimed by the plaintiff, had been acknowledged by the
defendants in the said meeting. A copy of minutes of meeting
held between the parties on 24.10.2018 has been placed on
record at Pages 17 to 19 of the documents filed by the
plaintiff. Point No.10 at Serial No.(j) records as under:
“(j) Point No 10-Regarding Defference in
Payments of Bill as per Actual in Lieu of Work
Order not Received and as per Bills made by the
Company. Mr Rohit Sood has projected his claim
towards this payment for approximate Rs 6.5 Crore.
This amount requires thorough checking and
reconciliation of voluminous old records/documents
by all concerned departments i.e. Finance, Legal
and HO people since the inception of the project
which is obviously time consuming. Therefore, it
has been decided and agreed upon by both the
parties that the matter will be resolved amicably by
MEIL and Mr. Rohit Sood in due course of time and
19
whatever, the actual amount realized, the same
shall be remitted by MEIL to Mr. Rohit Sood.”
18. The plaintiff has submitted that it was only on
23.12.2020 that the defendants had denied to fulfill their
commitment in accordance with the minutes of meeting
dated 24.10.2018 as extracted above. The plaint was
instituted on 16.09.2023. Thus, the plaint prima facie cannot
be said to be barred by limitation for the reasons firstly, that it
will be a mixed question of facts and law and until the dispute
on facts, if any, is adjudicated the findings as to the suit being
barred by law of limitation will be wholly unwarranted and
secondly, the fact that the plaintiff in the first instance availed
the remedy under MSME Act which, though had culminated
against him, yet may have relevance while considering the
matter in the perspective of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
19. It is next contended by the defendants that the
subject matter of the dispute is commercial in terms of
Section 2(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and thus, the
Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain and decide
the suit. Assuming the suit to be containing a commercial
dispute, in my considered view, it cannot be a ground for
20
rejection of plaint as in such exigency the provisions of Order
7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure will come into play,
according to which only the return of plaint is warranted and
not the rejection thereof. The filing of suit in a wrong Court
cannot be equated with bar to file suit created by any law.
20. The plaintiff has pleaded that the cause of action
to file the instant suit has arisen at village Chera, P.O.
Lohardi, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., as the work
order was executed at such place. Thus, according to the
plaintiff a part of cause of action to file suit has arisen within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The defendants have
alleged that the parties had entered into an agreement
conferring the exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at
Hyderabad to adjudicate upon any dispute arising from the
agreement inter se the parties. It again will be a disputed
question of fact as to whether the conferment of exclusive
jurisdiction on Courts at Hyderabad was made out. Again,
presuming that the issue, if any, in this regard is decided
against the plaintiff, it will be a case of return of plaint and not
the rejection thereof.
21
21. In light of above discussion, no case for rejection
of plaint is made out. The application is accordingly
dismissed.
( Satyen Vaidya )
Judge
May 19, 2025
(vt)
[ad_1]
Source link