Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd., filed a summary suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the respondent, India Infoline Ltd., in the Bombay City Civil Court for recovery of Rs.83,42,070.20. The summons for judgment was served on the respondent on 21st December 2012. Under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC, the respondent was required to apply for leave to defend within ten days, i.e., by 31st December 2012. The respondent sought inspection of documents, which was eventually given on 7th January 2013. On 11th January 2013, when the summons for judgment was called for hearing, the respondent's advocate requested time to file a reply. The court refused the request and passed an order adjourning the matter for hearing without reply. Thereafter, the respondent took out a Notice of Motion on 28th January 2013 to set aside the order dated 11th January 2013 and to take its affidavit-in-reply on record. After amendment of prayers, the Notice of Motion was allowed by the impugned order dated 17th August 2013, granting permission to file reply with costs of Rs.25,000. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over its own order and set it aside in the absence of a specific provision. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review/Appeal - Inherent Powers - Section 151, Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC - A Civil Court cannot sit in appeal over its own order and set it aside in the absence of a specific provision conferring such power. The impugned order allowing the defendant to file reply after the court had already refused time and proceeded without reply was held to be without jurisdiction. (Paras 2, 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Civil Court, in the absence of a specific provision therefor, can sit in appeal over its own order and set the same aside.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 17th August 2013 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court, and restored the order dated 11th January 2013.
Law Points
- Civil Court cannot review or set aside its own order unless expressly authorized by statute
- Order 37 CPC summary suit procedure
- inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to circumvent specific provisions
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (10) 51
WRIT PETITION NO.9999 OF 2013
Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.
Mr. Sameer Pandit and Ms. Ankita Godbole i/b Wadia Ghandy and Co. for petitioner; Mr. N. N. Thakore a/w Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Mr. Vikram Sathey, Ms. Jyoti Ghag, Mr. H. Kumar i/b M/s. Thakore Jariwala and Associates for respondent
Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Bombay City Civil Court allowing the respondent to file reply to summons for judgment after the court had earlier refused time and proceeded without reply.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 17th August 2013 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court allowing the respondent's Notice of Motion to set aside the order dated 11th January 2013 and grant permission to file reply.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over its own order and set it aside in the absence of a specific provision.
Previous Decisions
The Bombay City Civil Court on 11th January 2013 refused the respondent's request for time to file reply and adjourned the matter for hearing without reply. On 17th August 2013, the same court allowed the respondent's Notice of Motion to set aside that order and permitted filing of reply with costs.
Issues
Whether a Civil Court, in the absence of a specific provision, can sit in appeal over its own order and set it aside.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impugned order is ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction as the court cannot review its own order unless expressly authorized.
Respondent argued that the court had inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to set aside its order to prevent abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi
A Civil Court cannot sit in appeal over its own order and set it aside in the absence of a specific provision conferring such power. The inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to circumvent the specific provisions of Order 37 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is 'Whether a Civil Court, in the absence of a specific provision therefor, can sit in appeal over its own order and set the same aside.'
The impugned order allows the Notice of Motion and grants permission to the respondent to file reply to the Summons for Judgment with imposition of costs quantified to Rs.25,000/-.
Mr. Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is ex-facie illegal, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a summary suit in Bombay City Civil Court. Summons for judgment was served on 21st December 2012. The respondent failed to apply for leave to defend within ten days. On 11th January 2013, the court refused time to file reply and adjourned for hearing without reply. On 28th January 2013, the respondent took out a Notice of Motion to set aside that order. After amendment, the Notice of Motion was allowed on 17th August 2013. The petitioner challenged this order by way of writ petition in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 37 Rule 3(5), Section 151
