The case of Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd. [CM(M) 147/2024, Delhi High Court] is a significant ruling by the Delhi High Court that addresses the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly the requirement for a plaint to disclose a cause of action to survive rejection. The petitioner challenged the trial court’s dismissal of his application to reject the respondent’s plaint, arguing that it lacked sufficient details to constitute a valid cause of action.

The High Court’s decision clarifies the principles governing the rejection of a plaint, emphasizing that both the averments in the plaint and accompanying documents must be considered to determine the existence of a cause of action. This case study provides a detailed analysis of the factual and procedural background, issues, submissions, judicial reasoning, cited judgments, and the law settled, offering insights into the procedural safeguards against frivolous litigation under the CPC.

Detailed Factual Background:

• The dispute originates from a commercial suit (CS (Comm.) No. 886/2020) filed by the respondent, Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd., against the petitioner, Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva, before the District Judge, Commercial Court-03, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
• The respondent sought recovery of Rs. 21,28,478 (Rs. 18,03,795 as principal + Rs. 3,24,683 as interest), alleging the petitioner availed logistic services but failed to pay.
• The petitioner booked consignments via air using the respondent's services but defaulted on payments.
• The petitioner contested the suit, claiming the plaint was vague and lacked material particulars.
• On October 12, 2023, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint due to absence of cause of action.
• The trial court dismissed the application with Rs. 5,000 in costs, holding the plaint disclosed mixed questions of law and fact.
• Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 before the Delhi High Court.

Detailed Procedural Background:

• The respondent filed the commercial suit in 2020.
• The petitioner contested the claim and raised objections on the ground of insufficient details.
• On October 12, 2023, the petitioner filed an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application for rejection of the plaint.
• The trial court dismissed the application, finding the cause of action was sufficiently pleaded and required trial.
• The petitioner then filed CM(M) 147/2024 and an application for stay (CM APPL. 4557/2024) before the Delhi High Court.

Issues Involved in the Case:

• Whether the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC?
• Whether the absence of specific details (goods, airlines, freight, taxes) made the plaint deficient?
• Whether the trial court wrongly treated the issue as involving mixed questions of law and fact?
• Whether documents filed with the plaint could be used to determine cause of action?
• Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the application was sustainable or warranted interference?

Petitioner's Submission:

• The plaint lacked details of goods, dispatch, airlines, charges, making it vague and without a cause of action.
• The trial court erred by considering mixed questions of law and fact rather than restricting to plaint's averments.
• Cited cases:
  • Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC 557]
  • Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasana Singh [(2020) 16 SCC 601]
  • Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India [(2006) 6 SCC 207]
• Urged the High Court to set aside the trial court’s misinterpretation of the law.

Respondent's Submission:

• The plaint and documents (ledger accounts, airway bills, customer instructions, etc.) disclosed a valid cause of action.
• Accused petitioner of omitting documents in the High Court to mislead the court.
• Relied on Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success & Another [(2004) 9 SCC 512] supporting the view that filed documents should be considered.
• Urged the High Court to uphold the trial court's dismissal of the application.

Detailed Discussion on Judgments and Citations:

• Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557
  • Only plaint’s averments matter under Order 7 Rule 11; written statement irrelevant.
• Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasana Singh (2020) 16 SCC 601
  • Plaint must disclose clear cause of action; clever drafting insufficient.
• Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 207
  • Cause of action defined as bundle of facts plaintiff must prove to succeed.
• Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 294
• Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties (2006) 3 SCC 100
• Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510
• H.D. Vashishta v. Glaxo Laboratories AIR 1979 SC 134
• Hari Gokal Jewellers v. Satish Kapoor 2006 (88) DRJ 837 (Delhi) (DB)
• A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies 1989 (2) JT (SC) 38
• Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174
• Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success & Another (2004) 9 SCC 512
  • Documents filed with the plaint must be considered to determine cause of action.

Trial Court’s Reasoning:
The Court found no error in the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s application. The trial court’s reference to mixed questions of law and fact, while arguably imprecise, did not vitiate its conclusion that the plaint disclosed a cause of action. The High Court clarified that the trial court’s reliance on the plaint’s averments was supplemented by the documents, aligning with judicial precedents. Petitioner’s Arguments: The Court dismissed the petitioner’s reliance on cases like Saleem Bhai and Raghwendra Sharan Singh, noting that while they emphasize the plaint’s averments, subsequent rulings like Liverpool expanded the scope to include documents.

The petitioner’s failure to dispute the documents’ existence on the trial court record weakened their case. Threshold for Rejection: The Court emphasized that the phrase “does not disclose a cause of action” is narrowly construed, and rejection is an exceptional remedy. The respondent’s plaint, supported by 200 pages of documents, presented an arguable case, precluding rejection under Order 7 Rule 11.

Final Decision:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s petition (CM(M) 147/2024) and the accompanying stay application (CM APPL. 4557/2024), finding no merit in the challenge to the trial court’s order dated October 12, 2023. The Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, confirming that the respondent’s plaint, read with its documents, disclosed a valid cause of action. No costs were awarded.

Law Settled in the Case:
The case clarified several principles under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: Holistic Reading of Plaint: A plaint must be read as a whole, including documents filed under Order 7 Rule 14, to determine if it discloses a cause of action. Role of Documents: Documents accompanying the plaint are integral to assessing a cause of action, and a plaint should not be rejected if these documents cure deficiencies in the averments. Narrow Construction of Non-Disclosure: The ground of non-disclosure of a cause of action is narrowly construed, and rejection is warranted only in exceptional cases where the plaint is manifestly vexatious or lacks any right to sue.Cautious Exercise of Power: The power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is drastic and must be exercised cautiously, ensuring that arguable cases proceed to trial.Irrelevance of Defendant’s Pleas: The defendant’s written statement or defenses are irrelevant when deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, focusing solely on the plaint and its documents.

Case Title: Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva Vs. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd.: Date of Order: May 8, 2025:Case No.: CM(M) 147/2024:Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3427:Name of Court: High Court of Delhi:Name of Hon'ble Judge: Ravinder Dudeja, J.

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539