The presence of triable issues in a summary suit, where the defendant's obligations are interdependent, necessitates unconditional leave to defend without a pre-deposit requirement.

ORDER

1. The petitioner, a reputed firm of lawyers, was sued by the respondent, a lawyer who was working with the petitioner on retainership basis. The respondent preferred a suit as a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Leave to defend the suit has been granted by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the CPC, vide order dated 9th June 2022, conditional on the petitioner depositing, with the court, Rs. 58,93,935/-, being the amount claimed by the respondent from the petitioners in the suit. The learned ADJ has also directed release of the said deposited amount to the respondent, on the respondent furnishing of an equivalent bank guarantee.

2. Aggrieved by the direction, of the learned ADJ, to the petitioners, to deposit Rs. 58,93,935/- as a condition for leave to defend the suit instituted by the respondent, the petitioners have approached this Court, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the said purpose.

3. I have heard Mr. Atul Chitale, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, at length.

4. Learned Senior Counsel ad idem request that the present hearing be limited to question of issuance of notice and grant of stay in the petition.

5. Mr. Chitale prays that notice be issued in the petition and that an interim order, staying the direction, by the learned ADJ, to the petitioners, to deposit Rs. 58,93,935/-, be granted.

6. Mr. Vasdev, per contra, submits that the petition is completely devoid of merits and prays that the petition be dismissed.

7. This order, therefore, is restricted to the consideration of the question of whether the petition filed by the petitioners is required to be dismissed outright, or whether notice should be issued thereon and, if so, whether the petitioner deserves any interim protection.

8. As such, it is not necessary to delve deep into the controversy between the parties. A brief recital of facts would suffice.

9. The dispute revolves around a Consulting Agreement, dated 8th December 2009, executed between the petitioners and the respondent. The relevant clauses/recitals of the Consulting Agreement may be reproduced thus:

"This Consulting Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into on the 8th day of December 2009 in Delhi by and between Fox Mandal & Co. a Partnership Firm, having offices at Delhi and Noida among others, through Mr. Som Mandal, Manging Partner of the firm duly authorised to sign (hereinafter referred to as "FM") and Mr. Ravi Bishnoi s/o Mr. H.R. Bishnoi R/O C-98B, Sector 44, Noida, 201303 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant").

WHEREAS the company is in the business of providing legal services to its clients in various fields of law and the Consultant is a lawyer who has worked with FM on a retainership for the period April 2006 to 30th of November 2009.

WHEREAS now FM has approached the Consultant to engage the services of the Consultant for assisting FM with the legal services related to the Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd.'s (HNPCL) thermal power project in the state of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the "Project") and the Consultant agrees to offer his services, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth:

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and upon the terms and conditions set forth below, FM and the Consultant agree as follows:

1. OUTSTANDING DUES AND THE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING DUES OF THE CONSULTANT

1.1 FM acknowledges and agrees that the Consultant has rendered services to FM as a retainer till the 30th of November 2009 on the basis of a pre agreed retainership fee and out