Case Note & Summary
The case involves two petitions arising from an order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.8306/2012. The plaintiff, Bangalore International Airport Limited, filed a summary suit under Order 37 CPC against the defendant, United Breweries (Holdings) Limited, for recovery of a sum. The defendant filed I.A.No.1 under Order 37 Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave to defend the suit. The trial court partly allowed the application and granted conditional leave to defend, directing the defendant to deposit 50% of the suit claim (Rs. 7,00,00,000/-) together with interest at 8% per annum from the date of suit in any nationalized or scheduled bank. Aggrieved by the condition, the defendant filed Writ Petition No.19524/2013 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the condition. The plaintiff filed Civil Revision Petition No.193/2013 under Section 115 CPC challenging the grant of leave itself. The High Court heard both petitions together. The court noted that the trial court had jurisdiction to impose conditions but found that the condition of depositing 50% was excessive. Considering the facts and circumstances, the court reduced the deposit to 25% of the suit claim. The writ petition was partly allowed, and the revision petition was dismissed as the plaintiff had no grievance since leave was granted.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Summary Suit - Leave to Defend - Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC - Conditional Leave - The trial court granted conditional leave to defend requiring deposit of 50% of suit claim with interest. The High Court held that while the court has discretion to impose conditions, the condition must be proportionate and not arbitrary. Considering the facts, the deposit was reduced to 25% of the suit claim. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Revision - Maintainability - Section 115 CPC - The revision petition filed by the plaintiff against the same order was dismissed as the plaintiff had no grievance since leave was granted. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in imposing a condition of depositing 50% of the suit claim as a precondition for granting leave to defend in a summary suit under Order 37 CPC, and whether such condition was excessive.
Final Decision
Writ Petition No.19524/2013 is partly allowed. The condition imposed by the trial court requiring deposit of 50% of the suit claim is modified to 25% of the suit claim. The defendant shall deposit 25% of the suit claim within four weeks from the date of the order. Civil Revision Petition No.193/2013 is dismissed.
Law Points
- Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC
- Section 115 CPC
- Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
- conditional leave to defend
- summary suit
- discretion of trial court
- proportionality of deposit condition
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (10) 18
Writ Petition No.19524/2013 (GM-CPC) and C.R.P.No.193/2013
Sri D.L.N. Rao, Sr. Counsel and Sri Ajith A. Shetty, Advocate for petitioner in WP; Sri Sajjan Poovayya, Sr. Counsel and Ms. Hema Lawrence, Advocate for respondent in WP and petitioner in CRP
United Breweries (Holdings) Limited (in WP) and Bangalore International Airport Limited (in CRP)
Bangalore International Airport Limited (in WP) and United Breweries (Holdings) Limited (in CRP)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Summary suit for recovery of money under Order 37 CPC
Remedy Sought
Defendant sought leave to defend the suit; plaintiff sought to challenge the grant of leave
Filing Reason
Defendant challenged the condition of depositing 50% of suit claim as precondition for leave to defend; plaintiff challenged the grant of leave itself
Previous Decisions
Trial court partly allowed I.A.No.1 and granted conditional leave to defend requiring deposit of 50% of suit claim with interest
Issues
Whether the condition of depositing 50% of the suit claim imposed by the trial court for granting leave to defend was excessive and disproportionate?
Whether the plaintiff had any grievance against the order granting conditional leave to defend?
Submissions/Arguments
Defendant argued that the condition of depositing 50% of the suit claim was onerous and excessive, and that the trial court ought to have granted unconditional leave to defend.
Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting leave to defend at all, as the defendant had no triable defence.
Ratio Decidendi
In a summary suit under Order 37 CPC, the court has discretion to impose conditions while granting leave to defend, but such conditions must be proportionate and not arbitrary. The quantum of deposit should be based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, reducing the deposit from 50% to 25% was appropriate.
Judgment Excerpts
Order dated 30.03.2013 passed by 27th Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.8306/2012 partly allowing I.A.I filed by defendant under Order 37 Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 CPC and granting leave to defendant to defend the suit conditionally on depositing 50% of the suit claim in any nationalized or Scheduled Bank together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of suit has been questioned by the defendant as well as plaintiff.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a summary suit O.S.No.8306/2012 before the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The defendant filed I.A.No.1 under Order 37 Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave to defend. The trial court partly allowed the application on 30.03.2013, granting conditional leave to defend on deposit of 50% of the suit claim with interest. The defendant filed W.P.No.19524/2013 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the condition. The plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.193/2013 under Section 115 CPC challenging the grant of leave. Both petitions were heard together by the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 37 Rule 3(5), Section 115, Section 151
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
