Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shrihari Traders, filed a summary suit (Summary Suit No.11 of 2015) against the respondent, Choudhary & Choudhary (India) Ltd., for recovery of Rs.30,02,000/-. The claim arose from the supply of steel items worth Rs.1,57,18,508/- by the petitioner to the respondent. The respondent paid only Rs.1,26,63,760/-, leaving an outstanding balance. Despite a demand notice, the respondent failed to pay, leading to the suit. The respondent filed an application (Exhibit-37) seeking leave to defend the suit. The trial court granted unconditional leave to defend, which the petitioner challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioner argued that the respondent only disputed one invoice (Invoice No.S054 dated 22.09.2012 for Rs.4,45,765/-) and admitted liability for the remaining amount. Therefore, the trial court should have granted conditional leave requiring deposit of the undisputed amount. The respondent contended that there were triable issues. The High Court, per Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre, held that the trial court erred in granting unconditional leave. The court noted that the respondent admitted liability for all invoices except the disputed one, and thus the undisputed amount was Rs.25,56,235/- (Rs.30,02,000/- minus Rs.4,45,765/-). The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to deposit Rs.25,56,235/- within four weeks, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to a decree. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Summary Suit - Leave to Defend - Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether unconditional leave to defend should be granted when the defendant admits liability except for a small disputed portion. The court held that where the defendant admits liability for a substantial part of the claim, the trial court must grant conditional leave to defend requiring deposit of the undisputed amount. The impugned order granting unconditional leave was set aside and the defendant was directed to deposit Rs.25,56,235/- within four weeks. (Paras 1-8) B) Civil Procedure - Summary Suit - Undisputed Amount - Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court examined the principle that in a summary suit, if the defendant raises a dispute only regarding a small portion of the claim, the court should direct deposit of the admitted amount. The court found that the defendant had admitted liability for all invoices except one for Rs.4,45,765/-, and thus the trial court erred in granting unconditional leave. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting unconditional leave to defend when the defendant admitted liability except for a small disputed invoice, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a direction for deposit of the undisputed amount.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur below Exhibit-37 in Summary Suit No.11 of 2015 is set aside. The respondent-defendant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.25,56,235/- within four weeks from the date of the order. If the amount is deposited, the trial court shall grant conditional leave to defend. If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the petitioner-plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree in terms of the plaint. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Summary suit
- leave to defend
- unconditional leave
- conditional leave
- undisputed amount
- Order 37 CPC
- triable issues
- admission of liability
