Plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 by adjudicating mixed questions of fact.

The Appellant, a logistics provider, filed a recovery suit for Rs. 15,78,580/- against the Respondent for unpaid invoices related to the transportation of agricultural goods to Russia during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown

The Appellant alleged a direct contractual relationship established through 30 invoices and a consistent "course of dealing" where the Respondent previously made direct payments to the Appellant's account

Before issuing notice, the Commercial Court suo moto identified thirteen "anomalies" and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC

The rejection was based on the Commercial Court’s finding that export documentation (Mate’s Receipts) featured the Appellant's sister concern, M/s SPJ Cargo Private Limited, leading the court to conclude there was no "privity of contract" between the parties and that the Appellant was attempting to split a cause of action belonging to a third party

The Appellant’s application to amend the plaint was also dismissed

1. Whether the Commercial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by rejecting the plaint suo moto under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC based on a perceived lack of privity of contract.

2. Whether the technical and procedural anomalies identified by the Trial Court were sufficient grounds to reject the suit at the threshold.

The court applied Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC, which provides for the rejection of a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action.

Relying on Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, the court held that scrutiny under this rule must be restricted to the facts pleaded in the plaint and documents filed therewith, which must be assumed to be true

The court cited Utair Aviation v. Jagson Airlines Limited & Another to establish that "privity of contract" can be inferred from the express or implied conduct of parties

per Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, procedural laws are considered "handmaids of justice" and should not be used to defeat substantive claims through technicalities

The High Court observed that the Commercial Court committed a fundamental error by failing to restrict its scrutiny to the four corners of the plaint

By pleading direct solicitation, delivery of cargo, and the issuance of 30 invoices received without protest, the Appellant had clearly established a prima facie cause of action

The High Court criticized the Trial Court for conducting a "mini-trial" at the admission stage by analyzing the "export cycle" to determine the Appellant's standing

The question of whether the Appellant acted as a principal or an agent, or whether a contractual nexus existed despite the involvement of a sister concern, is a mixed question of fact and law that requires evidence

Additionally, the High Court noted that the thirteen "anomalies" cited—such as lack of registration under the Carriage by Road Act or errors in the Statement of Truth—were curable procedural defects that should not lead to summary rejection, especially when an amendment application was pending

It held that the Commercial Court's suo moto rejection of the plaint was a grave procedural irregularity that denied the Appellant a fair opportunity to prove their case

The suit was restored to its original number, and the parties were directed to appear before the Commercial Court on 07.04.2026