SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(Bom) 92

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Patel D.V.and Chitale M.G. JJ.
Appellants: Ramchandra Dhondu Dalvi
Vs.
Respondent: Vithaldas Gokuldas
Civil Revn. Appln. No. 875 of 1962
Decided On: 15.11.1963
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.J. Jadhav, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: B.L. Padhya, Adv.

The power of the court to set aside a decree under Order 37, Rule 4, CPC is not limited to cases where the defendant failed to appear in answer to the summons for judgment. The rule applies to all decrees made under Rule 2, including those passed against defendants who obtained leave to defend but failed to comply with the conditions of the leave.

Headnote:

SUMMARY SUIT - ORDER 37, RULE 4, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SCOPE OF POWER TO SET ASIDE DECREE - NOT LIMITED TO CASES WHERE DEFENDANT FAILED TO APPEAR IN ANSWER TO SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT - APPLIES TO ALL DECREES MADE UNDER RULE 2 - COURT CAN PASS ORDERS AS REQUIRED BY CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a summary suit under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to recover a debt. The defendant failed to obtain leave to defend and a decree was passed against him. The defendant applied to the trial court to set aside the decree, which was allowed. The plaintiff filed a revision application challenging the trial court's order.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the power of the court to set aside a decree under Order 37, Rule 4, CPC is not limited to cases where the defendant failed to appear in answer to the summons for judgment. The rule applies to all decrees made under Rule 2, including those passed against defendants who obtained leave to defend but failed to comply with the conditions of the leave.

Issues: Whether the power of the court to set aside a decree under Order 37, Rule 4, CPC is limited to cases where the defendant failed to appear in answer to the summons for judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the language of Order 37, Rule 4, CPC broadly and held that the words "after decree" mean "after such decree as is made under Rule 2". The court reasoned that the rule contemplates two circumstances under which a decree can be made: (1) where the defendant fails to obtain leave to defend; and (2) where having obtained such leave, he does not appear and defend the suit in pursuance of the leave. The court held that the words "the decree" in Rule 4 must mean "the decree" made under either of these circumstances.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision application and set aside the trial court's order setting aside the ex parte decree. The court directed the defendant to deposit the balance of the amount due to the plaintiff within one month, failing which the ex parte decree would be restored.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is an application in revision against an order setting aside an ex parte deciee passed in a summary suit, and the important question that arises is : whether the power of the Court to set aside a decree is limited to a case in which the defendant has failed to appear in answer to the summons for judgment or is wider?

2. Provisions relating to summary suits are contained in Order 37. Rule 1, Clause (a) provides that the order shall apply to the High Courts at Madras and Bombay and enables the High Court to apply the same to any other Court. Rule 2 Sub-rule (1) enunciates classes of suits which can be filed as Summary Suits and prey cribes the mannec of presentation of plaints. Such suits can be filed in respect of bills of exchange, hundis or promissory notes. In this state the scops of the order is widened and is applied to ail suits in which the plain-tiff seeks to recover a debt or money payable on demand, with or without interest, arising out of a contract. It is sufficient to State that the present demand of the plaintiff falls within the category of the claims in respect of which, suits can be instituted under this rule. Sub-rule (2) of that rule disables a defendant from defending the suit unless he obtains leave from the Judge as provided in Rule 3 and it provides fuither that if he makes default in obtaining leave and does not appear and defend in pur- suance of the leave, the allegations in the plaint Shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree as provided in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Sub-rule. Sub-rule (3) of the rule provides that a decree so obtained may be executed forthwith. Rule 3 (1) defines conditions under which the Court must give leave to defend to the defendant and Sub-rule (2) of the same rule provides that the leave may be given either conditionally or subject to terms that the Court may fix. Rule 4 relates to tlte power of the Court to set aside the decree, and is worded as follows :

"After decree the Court may, under special circum-stances, set aside the decree, and if necessary stay or set aside execution, and may give leave to the defendant to appear to the summons and to defend the suit, if it seems reasonable to the Court so to do, and on such terms as the Court thinks fit."

3. Mr. Justice Chandrachud in Mis. Ramaben Bhagu-bhai Patel v. Hindustan Electric Co. Ltd., 64 Bam L.R. 794, restricted the application of this rule to cases where defendant failed to appear in answer to the summons for judgment and then if it appear-ed to the Court that there are special circumstances by reason of which the defendant could not appear in answer to the summons. There he was dealing with a case where the defendant having obtained ieave to defend and, which was granted conditionally, failed to firlfil the condition and a decree was passed against him. The trial Court held that the section applied in the circumstances above stated only but acted under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code under its inherent powers and set aside the decree on a notice of motion. The learned Judge accspt-ed this construction of the rule.

4. No one can deny the fact that the provisions of Order 37 are made in the general interest of the public with a desire to speedy disposal of simple suits. Consistent with this object, it cannot be denied that such decrees, if ones made, ought not lightly to be set aside. Yet the words are of wide application and must be given their natural meaning. There can be no reason to res-trict their meaning by construction unless the language vsed. in the rule justifies such a construction. As stated above, it is. clear that Order 37 deals only with the summary procedure. If leave is gianled and the condition complied with, if it is conditional leave, the defendant becomes entitled to defend the suit and then, the suit ceases to be a summary suit and must be transferred to the regular list, in which case! there is no question of the applipation of






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top