Invoices can constitute written contracts under Order XXXVII of the CPC, allowing for summary suits to be maintainable based on such documentation.

JUDGMENT

P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J. - This appeal by the defendant is directed against judgment and decree dated January 25, 2010 in O.S. No. 15450/2005 passed XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit and directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.25, 67, 000.00 with interest at 12% p.a.

2. We have heard Shri. H.R. Anantha Krishna Murthy, learned Advocate for the appellant/defendant and Shri. Paras Jain and Shri. G.P.Jagadeesh, learned Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are, plaintiff is a Private Limited Company. It imports stainless steel and other commodities. Defendant entered into two separate 'High Sea' Sale agreements dtd. 15/7/2002 to purchase steel coils weighing 20.788 MT and 20.478 MT having CIF[Cost, Insurance, and Freight] value of USD 27959.86 and 27542.91. The stainless steel was to be imported from Rio-De-Janeiro, Brazil to Chennai Port. As per the Contract, defendant was required to pay the value of goods within thirty days from the date of invoice. Plaintiff raised a debit note (bearing No.001 dtd. 7/10/2002) for Rs.13, 77, 648.0059 ps. and another debit note (bearing No.002 dtd. 7/10/2002) for Rs.13, 89, 398.0028ps, aggregating to Rs.27, 67, 046.0087ps. Plaintiff demanded the payment and defendant failed to respond to plaintiff's communications. Subsequently, under letter 24/1/2003, defendant sent a demand draft for Rs.10.00 lakhs. Plaintiff got issued a legal notice for remaining amount. On receipt of the notice, defendant approached plaintiff's Advocate for settlement but the settlement did not go through. With these averments, plaintiff has brought the instant summary suit under Order XXXVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908['the CPC' for short] for recovery of Rs.25, 67, 000.00.

5. Defendant sought leave to defend the suit, contending inter alia that the suit was not maintainable; that the suit cannot be tried under Order XXXVII Rule 1 of CPC; that the plaintiff is stranger to the defendant; that plaintiff's claim that it has taken over the assets and liabilities of the dissolved partnership firm is false; that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.

6. Based on the pleadings, the learned Trial Court has framed following points for consideration:

"1. Whether the present suit is maintainable under Order 37 of C.P.C.? 2. If so, whether plaintiff is entitled for decree under Order 37 Rule 3(6)(a) of C.P.C.? 3. What Order? "

7. Answering points No.1 and 2 in the affirmative, the Trial Court has decreed the suit.

8. Shri. Anatha Krishna Murthy, learned Advocate for the defendant/appellant, praying to allow the appeal submitted that:

the Trial Court has erred in holding that the instant suit is maintainable under Order XXXVII of the CPC; ? plaintiff has mentioned in the cause title of the plaint that it has taken over the assets and liabilities of the dissolved partnership firm named 'M/s. Pradeep International'. This fact is not pleaded in the plaint and no document is produced in that behalf. The Trial Court has not recorded any finding on this aspect;

the question whether there is an assignment of debt or not, requires consideration; ? the suit is filed on the basis of two distinct contracts dtd. 15/7/2002. The agreements are entered between the defendant and M/s. Pradeep International (a Partnership firm). Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company. Therefore, there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant;

the Trial Court has erred in holding that the agreement provides for payment of interest; ? the Trial Court has failed to consider that out of two agreements the Managing Director of the defendant Company has signed only one agreement in respect of 20.788 MT stainless-steel coils; ? the Trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit only on the basis of the debit notes and invoices; ? there is no