QUADRICON PVT LTD Vs. BAJRANG ALLOYS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th December, 2007, passed in Notice of Motion No. 467 of 2007 in Suit No. 3537 of 2004. Suit No. 3537 of 2004 has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant. The respondent-defendant took out Notice of Motion No. 6456 of 2005, raising a preliminary issue of jurisdiction under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and for a declaration that this Court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit and consequently for an order that the plaint be returned under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "C.P.C.").

(2.) By order dated 26th April, 2006, Notice of Motion No. 745 of 2005 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The defendant filed Appeal No. 896 of 2006 against the said order. The said appeal was disposed of by an order dated 13th December, 2006 by the Division Bench. While dismissing the appeal the Division Bench held that it was open to the defendant to make an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and if such an application is made, it would be considered uninfluenced by the order dated 26th April, 2004. In the circumstances, the defendant took out Notice of Motion No. 467 of 2007 for an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C.

(3.) In the present matter, the plaint was presented on 29th September, 2004 and it was admitted on 10th December, 2004. At that time, the leave application under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was not filed by the appellant, but when the defendant raised an exception to the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Notice of Motion No. 745 of 2005, the appellant filed an Affidavit-in-reply on 27th March, 2006, wherein the appellant stated that the appellant intended applying for leave under Clause 12 and, accordingly, the appellant filed a leave application under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on 27th March, 2006. The said application has been considered and rejected by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Since the leave is rejected, the plaint automatically stood rejected.