1 CGHC010012312026 2026:CGHC:30864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 24 of 2026 1 - B And R Leisure Private Limited Through Its Representative Director Mr. Raghvendra Shetty, 108 A, 1st Floor, Crystal Plaza New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, Pin - 400053 2 - Mr. Raghavendra Sheena Shetty Director B And R Leisure Private Limited, 108 A, 1st Floor, Crystal Plaza New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, Pin - 400053 ... Applicant. Versus Mr. Harshit Singhaniya, Resident Of 5, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin- 492001 ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. Sudhansu Upadhyaya, Adv on behalf of Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 21/07/2026 1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been filed by the applicants challenging the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur in Commercial Suit No. 05B/2025 (Mr. Harshit Singhania Vs. B & R Leisure Private Limited and another), whereby the application filed Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.22 12:16:27 +0530 2 by the applicants/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants submits that in respect of the alleged contract, the hospitality center was to be opened at Mumbai and thereafter in Raipur, as such, the contract was to be completed at Mumbai. In such circumstances, the Commercial Court at Raipur has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit filed by the plaintiff. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from illegality, deserves to be quashed, and the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It is a well-settled principle of law that to reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments made in the plaint are to be referred to. In the instant commercial civil suit (Annexure-A/2), the plaintiff in paragraph 5 of the plaint averred that the agreement was entered into between the parties at Raipur. Therefore, the learned Commercial Court rightly observed in paragraph 10 of the impugned order that the sole basis to decide the said application would be the averments in the plaint. Further, the learned Commercial Court in paragraph 11 also observed that the issue of territorial jurisdiction shall remain open for consideration by framing a specific issue in this regard, to be dealt with finally on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties. 3 6. In view of the above and considering the categorical observations made by the learned Commercial Court, this Court does not find any irregularity or perversity in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the civil revision, being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay