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

2017 Supreme(Del) 3299

JAYANT NATH
Arun Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Yogender Singh Panwar @ Sonu – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate

ORDER :

Jayant Nath, J.

CM No. 47824/2016 (exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) No. 1377/2016 & CM No. 47823/2016 (stay)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 6.12.2016 by which a suit filed by the petitioner was not treated as a suit under Order 37, CPC.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken me through the plaint and has submitted that on 4.2.2015 the respondent towards the repayment of the loan amount advanced to him by the plaintiff along with interest accrued thereon had tendered two cheques of Rs. 4 lacs and 6 lacs, respectively. These cheques when presented, the same were returned unpaid with the remarks "Account Closed". He submits that as the cheques have been given, the suit is covered under Order 37 of the CPC.

3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no reference to the said cheques. The trial court has merely come to the conclusion that there is no proof of disbursement of the amount and hence declined to consider the suit under Order 37 of the CPC.

4. Order 37 Rules 1(2) & 2, CPC reads as follows:

"37(1) Courts and classes of suits to which the Order is to apply.

(2) Subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (1















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top