IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4594 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.7.2010 Harbhajan Singh ....Petitioner Versus M/s Essar Steels Limited and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.V.K.Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial court on an application moved by him under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the first instance when the suit was filed in the year 1999 the petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure pleading that the court did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit, which prayer was declined in the year 2006. Thereafter, he moved the instant application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that the suit is against the company and the allegations against the petitioner are not substantiated from the plaint. The sole grievance of the petitioner in the application is that he had resigned from the directorship of the C.R.No.4594 of 2010 (O&M) -2- company and was no longer responsible for the affairs of the same, which could have been sued in its own capacity and the petitioner was not liable in any manner. The Court declined the application on the premise that an earlier application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been moved by the petitioner and therefore the subsequent application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not the requisite remedy, more so when the application was moved belatedly. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. When the petitioner moved the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC , i.e. In the first instance, he chose only to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. In any eventuality the subsequent application in which he stated that he is not responsible for the affairs of the company is a matter to be determined on the basis of evidence and the court could not have granted this prayer even if the application was considered in the manner the petitioner wanted to do so as the suit could not be thrown at the threshold by accepting the prayer of the petitioner. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 26.7.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss