ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") read with Section 151 of the CPC has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"i) Set aside/quash the Order dated 20-2-2020 Passed by Sh. Shivaji Anand Ld A.D.J.-02(North) Rohini District Court, Delhi passed in Civil Suit No. 138/2017 titled as Braj Mohan Garg Vs Krishna Maruti Limited thereby allowing the application for grant of leave to defend under order 37 Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 CPC.

ii) Summon the records of the trial court Civil Suit No. 138/2017 titled as Braj Mohan Garg Vs Krishna Maruti Limited pending in the court of Shivaji Anand Ld A.D.J.-02 (North) Rohini District Court, Delhi.

iii) Any other or further relief/order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the appellants and against the defendant."

2. A brief background of the instant petition is that the petitioner had preferred a suit for recovery of Rs.52,18,003/-, being the balance of professional fee, against the respondent under Order XXXVII of the CPC before the Additional District Judge-02, Rohini District Court, New Delhi (hereinafter "ADJ" or "Trial Court"). The learned Trial Court, while taking cognizance of the matter, issued notice to the defendant.

3. In the said suit, an application praying for leave to defend in the summary suit was filed on behalf of the respondent, i.e., defendant before the Trial Court. The petitioner filed his reply before the learned ADJ raising objections to the said application and subsequently, the arguments were heard from both the sides on the application.

4. Vide the impugned order dated 20th February 2020, the learned ADJ allowed the application of the respondent thereby directing the respondent to file its written statement within 30 days from the date of the order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and is assailing the same before this Court by invoking Section 115 of the CPC.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court erroneously allowed the application of the respondent granting it the leave to defend without appreciating the facts of the case as well as the record before it. It is submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the various documents placed before it, including the plaint, application of the leave to defend, the reply to the application, the various demand letters placed before the Court, the cheques for part payment, TDS certificates etc.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Trial Court did not appreciate that the suit instituted against the respondent is based on agreement by email and correspondence between the parties. The facts regarding period of service have also not been appreciated by the Trial Court.

7. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent failed to show any specific triable issue in its application, yet, Trial Court wrongly observed that the respondent raised triable issues which would require attention and intervention of the Court. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court did not consider that the respondent did not satisfy the requirement of substantial defence that is likely to succeed. It is submitted that on one hand, a plea was raised on behalf of the respondent that there is no privity of contract between the parties and on other hand, a plea was raised that the company had made entire payment to the petitioner, which is self-contradictory.

8. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court held that the objections raised by the respondent can be decided on merits after leading evidence and hence, erroneously allowed the application of the respondent.

9. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without providing sufficient reasons and suffers from material illegality and is against the settled pri