$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 203/2026 & CM APPL. 45406/2026 CM APPL. 45407/2026 CM APPL. 45408/2026 M/S. GREEN LOUNGE NORTH BANQUETS .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Saumya Dwivedi, Adv. versus ROSHAN LAL .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. This petition has been filed assailing impugned order dated 06th January 2026, passed by the SCJ-cum-RC, North West District, Rohini Courts, in CS SCJ No. 921/2023, whereby application filed by petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], was dismissed. 2. The suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.1,50,000/-, which had been paid as an advance by respondent/plaintiff to petitioner/defendant, towards booking of petitioner’s banquet hall for the marriage of his daughter. The receipt stated that the advance amount would not be refundable in any situation. However, the booking was cancelled, and a refund request was made. Upon refusal of the request for refund, said suit was initiated by respondent/plaintiff. 3. In the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:08:37 petitioner/defendant contented that the receipt categorically stated that advance amount would be non-refundable and, therefore, there was no cause of action. 4. Ms. Saumya Dwivedi, counsel for petitioner/defendant, points out that the only other assertion made by respondent/plaintiff in the plaint, is in paragraph 8, which provides that there was a discussion with the manager of petitioner company who had agreed to refund the amount, and requested for one month’s time for doing so. Subsequently, when the respondent/plaintiff went for a refund, the manager started giving lame excuses. 5. This assertion itself, in the opinion of the Court, has to be read as it is, particularly for the purposes of adjudication of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, in view of the settled position of law. Ultimately, it is for the petitioner/defendant to counter this in their written statement, and dispute the said fact. Further, its impact on the overall transaction would have to be considered by the Trial Court post-evidence. 6. Needless to say, a matter of this nature ought to be settled amicably. 7. The Trial Court was right in directing the parties to appear before the National Lok Adalat for exploring possibilities of an amicable settlement. However, counsel for petitioner, states that the matter could not be settled. 8. In the event that the parties still wish to explore settlement, the Trial Court may refer them for mediation. 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 10. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JULY 20, 2026/MK/ya This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:08:37