( 1 ) BY IA No. 2294/2002, under order XXXVII, Rule 3 (5] read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure defendant seeks unconditional leave to contest the suit. Plaintiff M/s. Dura-Line India Pvt. Ltd. , formerly known as M/s. Bharti Dura-Line limited, has instituted the present suit under Order XXXVII. CPC, claiming a sum of rs. 35,88,620 (Rs. Thirty five lacs eighty eight thousand six hundred twenty only) together with costs. Plaintiff also seeks pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. Upon summons being issued under Order XXXVII CPC, defendant entered appearance accompanied with an application for condonation of delay In entering appearance. Vide order dated 14-2-2002, delay in entering appearance was condoned, Plaintiff took out summons for judgment in response to which the defendant has filed the above application, seeking leave to contest.

( 2 ) BEFORE considering the grounds urged in support of the application for unconditional leave to contest the suit, the facts in brief as they emerge from the plaint, application and admitted documents may be noted.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFFS case in brief is that it is engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacturing and sale of "permanently Solid lubricated Silicore HDPE Telecom Ducts, its associated accessories, tools, cable jet, super get machines etc. " Defendant approached the plaintiff and made enquiries regarding the supply of the above products. Plaintiff gave its offer on 22-6-2000, setting out the price and other terms. Plaintiff revised the above offer vide its letter dated 25-10-2000. Defendant in response to the plaintiffs revised offer, issued five purchase orders, detailed as under :

(I) Purchase Order No. BIPL-P/1025/ po1038 dated 21-9-2000 (ii) Purchase Order No. BIPL-P/1025/ po1049 dated 9-10-2000 (iii) Purchase Order No. BIPL-P/1025/ po1065 dated 8-11-2000 (iv) Purchase Order No. BIPL-P/1025/ po1066 dated 8-11-2000 (v) Purchase Order No. BIPL-P/1025/ po1088 dated 15-12-2000

( 4 ) THE goods, ordered by the defendant, were supplied by the plaintiff company and delivered to the defendant. Plaintiff has given in para 6 of the plaint, the details of the purchase orders, execution thereof and raising of the invoices in respect thereof. Plaintiff company also executed similar orders, received from another group company of the defendant, namely. M/s. BPL, Inovision Ltd. Correspondence was exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant. Reference in the correspondence, at times, is to the entire outstanding of the BPL group of companies. Plaintiff, however, is relying on the correspondence, relating to the dues of the defendant company.

( 5 ) PLAINTIFF company maintains a running account in Its books of the dealings with the defendant. Plaintiff has produced on record the statement of account as also the confirmation of the statement of account, as given by the defendant (Annexure P. 22) appearing at page 107 of the paper book. Defendant confirmed a debit balance of Rs. 29,09,052/- (Rs. Twenty nine lacs nine thousand fifty two only), as due from the defendant to the plaintiff as on 26-9-2001. Plaintiff relies on letters dated 10-4-2001 and 8-6-2001. Defendant, in response, accepted that the amount has been outstanding for long and indicated end of May, 200,1, as th the date by which the outstanding amount of payment could be released. In the letter of 8-6-2001, the defendant expressed that due to internal compulsion, they were unable to give immediate payment schedule and requested the plaintiff to bear with them, assuming that they were drawing up the dues clearance plan, and would intimate them shortly. Again, defendant vide its letter dated 3-7-2001, stated as under :

"i pretty much understand your predicament. We are working on a solution, please bear with us. I know it may mean nothing to you until you see the money but I can assure you that there is not going to be an extensive delay. "

( 6 ) LASTLY vide letter dated 5-7-2001, (Annexure P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document