P. N. BHAGWATI, N. K. VAKIL, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision Application is directed against an order passed by the City Civil Court Ahmedabad granting leave to the first defendant to defend the suit on condition of depositing a sum of Rs. 1 0 within two weeks from the date of the order. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to recover a sum of Rs. 2 0 being the amount due under a cheque dated 22nd September 1963 drawn by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant and endorsed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The cheque was delivered by the first defendant to the plaintiff on 11th September 1963 and against the cheque the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs. 2 0 to the first defendant. The cheque was thereafter presented by the plaintiff for payment on 22nd September 1963 but the cheque was dishonoured by the Bank by nonpayment. The plaintiff therefore filed the present suit to recover the amount due under the dishonoured cheque together with interest and costs The suit was filed as a summary suit since it was based on a negotiable instrument and after the defendant filed his appearance the plaintiff took out a summons for judgment for a decree for the amount claimed in the suit. The defendant resisted the summons for judgment by filing an affidavit-in-reply but the learned Judge hearing the summons for judgment after taking into account the plaint and the affidavits made an order granting conditional leave to the first defendant to defend the suit on his depositing a sum of Rs. 1 0 within two weeks from the date of the order. The first defendant thereupon preferred the present Revision Application in this Court challenging the validity of this order.

( 2 ) THE first contention advanced by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the first defendant was that Rules 142 to 148a of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules 1961 were ultra vires the rule-making power of the High Court and the learned Judge had therefore no power to impose any condition on the right of the first defendant to defend the suit. This contention is however unsustainable in view of the judgment given by us on 2nd February 1967 in Civil Revision Application No. 1089 of 1966 where we have taken the view after an elaborate discussion of the various arguments bearing upon the question that Rules 142 to 148a are not ultra vires the rule-making power of the High Court (M/s. Keshavlal v. Manubhai IX G. L. R. 177 ). Having regard to that judgment we must reject the present contention urged on behalf of the first defendant.

( 3 ) IT was then contended on behalf of the first defendant that the order granting conditional leave to defend the suit was bad inasmuch as it did not disclose the reasons on which it was based. The argument was that since the order was a judicial order made by the learned Judge in the exercise of his judicial discretion it was necessary that it should set out the reasons so that the revisional Court could examine the validity of the reasons which prevailed with the learned Judge in exercising his discretion in the manner he did. This argument was sought to be supported by reference to the decision of Mudholkar J. sitting as a single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Waman v. Firm Pratapmal D. and Co. A. I. R. 1960 Bombay 520. Now it is no doubt true that this decision of the Bombay High Court does say that an order granting or refusing leave to defend made by a Judge under the summary procedure must set out the reasons on which the order is based but with the greatest respect to the learned Judge we find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by him. So far as the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned the summary procedure is prescribed in Order 37 of the Code and when we turn to the rules enacted in Order 37 of the Code we do not find any provision in those rules which lays down that an order granting or refusing leave to defend made by a Judge in a summary suit must contain the reasons for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document