This appeal is filed by the defendant.

2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

3. The plaintiff is said to be a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at Bangalore. It is said to have a credit card division, known as Cancard Division, with its Head office also at Bangalore.

The defendant was said to be a credit card holder of the plaintiff and was issued a Cancard – Visa card, at Cochin. The card was issued against his application dated 16.10.1998. The application was said to have been forwarded to the plaintiff at Bangalore. The defendant’s membership was said to have been accepted and he was issued the card bearing no.4543 6330 1053 2574. The same was said to have been issued on 31.10.1998 and was valid till 31.10.2001. It was claimed that the defendant was not only bound by the terms and conditions then existing, but also any changes that could be made.

The defendant was bound to make payments of the amounts that fell due on the card, within 15 days of sending the monthly statement, sent every 20th of each month. It was claimed that under Clause no.11 of the terms and conditions of the contract governing the Cancard – Visa, the defendant was bound to pay service charges at the rate of 2.5% per month, in the event of any delay in payment beyond 15 days as prescribed above.

It transpires that the defendant had defaulted in making timely payments and in spite of repeated demands, payments not having been made, a legal notice is said to have been issued, dated 4.3.2000. And the suit for recovery of Rs.88,548/-, as per a consolidated statement of account was said to have been filed. It was also claimed that the defendant was liable to pay current and future service charges at the rate of 2.5% compounded monthly from the date of suit till recovery.

The defendant had filed written statement to contend that the contract was not entered into at Bangalore and hence the trial court at Bangalore had no jurisdiction. That he was a resident of Kerala State and that he had transacted with the defendant’s office at Kerala.

It was contended that the defendant had paid all amounts due against the credit card facility availed of by him and that he had surrendered the credit card at Kerala. And that he had not received any notice after closure of the account. The defendant denied that he was made aware of any fully worded contract while being issued the credit card. He denied that he had agreed to pay any service charges at the rate of 2.5% monthly or compounded amount thereon on delayed payments. That it was impermissible for the plaintiff to claim interest at the rate of 30% per month and to compound the same monthly. Charging of interest at such usurious rates was against public policy. Further any such liability towards usurious rates of interest could not be enforced by recourse to a suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC.

The suit was filed under Order XXXVII Rules 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’, for brevity). But the summary procedure prescribed under Order XXXVII has not been followed and the suit has been tried as a suit filed in the ordinary manner. Yet another oddity is that the trial court has framed the issues in the Kannada language, while the rest of the judgment is in the English language. Apparently, the issues were framed by a predecessor of the Judge, who had rendered judgment and the judge rendering the judgment felt that the issues were cast in steel and could not even be translated to English, as if the same would lose their sanctity.

Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC reads thus:

“ [5. Power to amend and strike out issue. – (1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determin