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 5 the 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 Minimum Wages Act. 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 the plaintiff Amount agreed to 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 certificate To be issued by the defendants. 12. Work completion certificate To be issued as per request of plaintiff. 13. Medical expenses and disability claim of Sh. Jagar Nath Defendants agreed to settle all claims of Sh. Jagar Nath. 14. Wages to be paid till final settlement Wages were 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 13 pleading 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)