Case Note & Summary
The present civil revision application was filed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (the original defendants) against the order dated 30-01-2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 2013, whereby the trial court granted unconditional leave to defend to the plaintiff-respondent (Shriji Enterprises). The respondent had filed a summary suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent. The applicants (defendants) contended that the respondent was not the owner of the suit property and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them, as the property belonged to the Municipal Council, Dharangaon, and the respondent had no title. The trial court, after considering the affidavits and documents, found that the respondent had failed to establish a clear title and that the defendants had raised triable issues, thus granting unconditional leave to defend. The applicants challenged this order by way of revision under Section 115 CPC. The High Court held that the order granting unconditional leave to defend is an interlocutory order and does not finally decide the suit, and therefore, the revision is not maintainable. The court further observed that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion in granting leave as the defendants had raised a plausible defence regarding title and attornment. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 37 Rule 3 - Leave to Defend - Summary Suit - Triable Issues - Tenant raised triable issues regarding attornment and title of landlord - Held that unconditional leave to defend must be granted if the defendant raises a triable issue or a plausible defence, and the court cannot go into detailed evidence at the stage of granting leave (Paras 5-8). B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Revision - Interlocutory Order - Leave to Defend - Revision against order granting unconditional leave to defend is not maintainable as it is an interlocutory order and does not finally decide the suit - Held that the revisional court should not interfere with such discretionary orders unless there is a patent illegality or jurisdictional error (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in granting unconditional leave to defend to the tenant in a summary suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent, and whether the revision against such order is maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, holding that the order granting unconditional leave to defend is interlocutory and not amenable to revision under Section 115 CPC. The trial court's order was upheld.
Law Points
- Order 37 CPC
- Leave to Defend
- Triable Issues
- Summary Suit
- Recovery of Possession
- Attornment
- Title of Landlord
