An order of dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC will not come in the way of trial Court while framing an issue on territorial jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court in the matter of M/s Meyer Apparel Ltd. Vs. M/s Panchanan International Private Limited bearing CM(M) 1511/2018 decided on 11.03.2020 held that an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC is disposed of by considering the plaint only and not the written statement and therefore, the parameters for deciding such an application and for framing of issues are totally different.
Facts
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant and admitted in his plaint that its office was located in Gurgaon and not within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court in Delhi. The Plaintiff sought to make out a case that the jurisdiction vested in the trial Court in Delhi as the officers of the defendant had approached the plaintiff at their office and the entire transaction had taken place in the office of the defendant at Delhi. The defendant in the written statement specifically denied that any transaction took place in Delhi rather it was averred that no part of cause of action had arisen in Delhi and in fact, the officers of the plaintiff had approached the defendant at their office in Gurgaon and the entire transaction had taken place at Gurgaon. Vide the impugned order, the trial court framed the issues however, did not frame an issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court and also recorded that no other issue was pressed.
The Plaintiff sought to defend the order of the Trial Court on the ground that before the stage of framing of issues, an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC seeking return of plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, was dismissed and therefore, the defendant was now precluded from raising the said objection.
Issue
Whether dismissal of an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC finally settles the issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction?
Ratio
The Delhi High Court reiterated that it is a settled position of law that an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC is disposed of by considering the plaint with a demur. The defence of the defendant in the Written Statement is not to be taken into account while deciding such application. The Court held that since the plaintiff had averred that cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of trial Court and the defendant had specifically denied the same, an issue was liable to be framed on the question of territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. The Court further held that the mere fact that the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, filed by the petitioner, was rejected by the trial Court and there was no further challenge to the same, would be of no consequence in as much as the parameters for considering an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC are different and distinct from the parameters for framing an issue.