Case Note & Summary
This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 25, 2010 in O.S. No. 15450/2005 passed by the XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit and directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,67,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. The appellant/defendant, M/s. Stove Kraft Pvt. Ltd., challenged the decree on the ground that the trial court had not granted leave to defend despite the existence of triable issues. The respondent/plaintiff, M/s. Pradeep Stainless Steel India Pvt. Ltd., had filed a summary suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of money. The defendant contended that the amount claimed was not due and that there were disputes regarding the quality and quantity of goods supplied. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court had erred in decreeing the suit without granting leave to defend, as the defendant had raised triable issues. The court set aside the decree and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration, directing that the defendant be granted leave to defend and the suit be tried in accordance with law. The court also directed that the parties be given an opportunity to adduce evidence.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Summary Suit - Leave to Defend - Order 37 Rule 3(6)(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The defendant in a summary suit must be granted leave to defend if triable issues are raised; the court must not mechanically decree the suit without considering the defence. Held that the trial court erred in decreeing the suit without granting leave to defend, as the defendant had raised triable issues regarding the quantum and liability. (Paras 2-5) B) Civil Procedure - Summary Suit - Triable Issues - Order 37 Rule 3(6)(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - A defence that raises a real issue or a plausible contention must be allowed to be tried. Held that the defendant's contention regarding the amount and the nature of transactions constituted triable issues, warranting grant of leave to defend. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit under Order 37 Rule 3(6)(a) CPC without granting leave to defend to the defendant, despite the existence of triable issues.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree dated 25.01.2010 in O.S. No. 15450/2005 set aside. Matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration. Defendant granted leave to defend. Suit to be tried in accordance with law. Parties to be given opportunity to adduce evidence.
Law Points
- Order 37 Rule 3(6)(a) CPC
- Leave to defend
- Triable issues
- Summary suit
- Recovery of money
