Vikramajit Sen, J.

( 1 ) THIS suit for the recovery of Rs. 48,89,814. 00 (Rs. Forty Eight Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Eight hundred Fourteen only) had been filed under the summary procedure contained in Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Plaintiffs were in the business of manufacturing and marketing of brass nickel plated and aluminium caps in different grades and filament form pure tungsten for use in fluorescent tubes and bulbs. Pursuant to written/telephonic verbal orders supplies were made by it to the Defendant. Payment of the goods so supplied by the Plaintiff was to be made within a period of 45 days from the date of bill/challan/voucher failing which interest at the rate of 21% per annum was payable. As per the books of accounts of the Plaintiff. A total sum of Rs. 33,16,270. 00 (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Seventy only) along with interest at the aforesaid rate of 21% per annum, (constituting the claim in the suit) is stated to be outstanding for 31 separate deliveries carried out between 25. 3. 1994 and 9. 8. 1995, in respect of bills of which details have been given in the Plaint. In the Plaint it is further pleaded that cheques of the Defendants for the aforesaid outstanding amount had been kept with a certain Mr. Natarajan and were to be released to the Plaintiffs from time to time. It has been stated that the cause of action arose when the cheques issued by the Defendant Company were dishonoured by their Bankers. It is further averred that the entire claim of the Plaintiff is an admitted amount in view of the fact that the Defendant had already issued "c Forms" to the Plaintiff. It is further pleaded that "the suit is for the recovery of Debt/liquidated remand in money payable by then Defendant Company in terms of the written contract. "

( 2 ) THE Defendant has filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure for the grant of leave to defend. The submissions are that the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of Order XXXVII; that inasmuch as a complete paper book along with the documents had not been supplied, service had not been properly effected; that the amounts were not payable as the alleged goods were not supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant; the documents on the basis of which the suit is predicated were not filed along with the Plaint; that identical facts were pleaded in the winding up petition and were duly controverted by the Defendants in those proceedings; that even oral orders have not been placed by the Defendants on the Plaintiff; that the Defendants had taken supply somewhere till the middle of 1995 and the Defendants had also made up to date payment to the Plaintiff and that from 1. 5. 1995 till 20. 9. 1995 the Defendants had paid Rs. 8,82,296. 00 (Rs. Eight Lakhs Eighty Two Hhousand Two Hundred Ninety Six only) to the Plaintiff and consequent upon these payments the account of the Plaintiff was cleared and there was nothing outstanding; that the factory was lying closed since April, 1996; that there was no occasion for the Defendants to keep any cheque with Mr. Natarajan or to issue any cheque with Mr. Natarajan or to issue any cheque to the Plaintiff; that the Defendants had never admitted the false and frivolous claim raised by the Plaintiff; that since no amount was liable to be paid the question of interest did not arise.

( 3 ) THE Defendants objection that he was not supplied copies of documents and that the documents relied on the Plaint ought to have been filed at the time of the institution of the suit is not of substance. Non-supply of copies of documents is invariably taken. The answer, to obviate these controversies, is obviously that the Defendant could very easily have inspected the Court records, as was in fact done in this case. This observation is one restricted to the present case and is not in derogation of the necessity to serve the opposite party with copies required to be served under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document