Compliance with mandatory procedural requirements and the existence of a written contract are crucial in summary suits under Order 37, C.P.C.

1. Impugning the fair and decreetal Order dated 3.3.2005 and made in I.A. No.19268 of 2004 in O.S. No.3206 of 2004, on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, this Memorandum of Civil Revision is filled by the Revision Petitioner.

2. The Respondent herein has filed a Suit in O.S.No.3206 of 2004, under Order 37, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as against the Revision Petition herein on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai claiming a sum of Rs.4,19,761/-together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the said amount, from the date of Plaint till the date of realization.

3. The Revision Petitioner herein has filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No.19268 of 2004, under Order 37, Rule 3, C.P.C., on the file of the above said Court seeking the relief of granting leave to defend in the Suit.

4. The Respondent herein has also contested the above interlocutory application by filing a detailed Counter Affidavit.

5. On considering the submissions of both sides and on evaluating the related facts and circumstances based on the documents produced on behalf of the Respondent, the learned II Assistant Judge, who was placed in additional charge of I Assistant Court, has dismissed the above Petition on 3.3.2005 and on the same date itself has decreed the Suit as prayed for with Suits.

6. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 3.3.2005 and made in I.A.No.19268 of 2004, the Revision Petitioner, being the Defendant has preferred the present Revision Petition.

7. In the Suit in O.S. No.3206 of 2004, which appears to have been filed under Order 37, Rule 1, C.P.C., the Respondent being the Plaintiff has alleged that on the application made by the Revision Petitioner, the Plaintiff had sanctioned a Credit Card Globally valid Master Card bearing No.5548 5120 0529 4824 on 28.7.2000.

8. Subsequently, the Revision Petitioner/Defendant had also applied for two more cards and the Plaintiff had also issued one credit card bearing No.4567 1989 3847 2536 on 23.10.2000 and the another card bearing No.4384 5914 0101 1635 on 28.9.2002.

9. It is apparent from the averments of the Plaint that the Defendant used the credit card for purchase of goods and other items and that the Defendant was not regular in repaying the amount to the Plaintiff as per the bills forwarded to him and has become a defaulter. According to the Respondent/Plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,19,761/- is due from the Defendant and interest thereon as on 24.9.2003.

10. Therefore, the Plaintiff was constrained to file the above Suit under summary procedure as contemplated under Order 37, Rule 1, C.P.C,

11. In his Petition under Order 37, Rule 3, C.P.C., for granting leave to defend in the Suit, the Revision Petitioner being the Defendant has raised the following grounds:

i. The Manager is not competent to represent Plaintiff-Bank as he was not duly authorised by the Board of Directors to verify and present the Plaint as contemplated under Order 29, Rule 1, C.P.C.,

ii. The credit card does not come under the category of bills of exchange, hundis or Promissory Notes;

iii. The Suit claim is not a liquidated demand in money payable by the Defendant with or without interest arising on a written contract;

iv. The goods were purchased long ago. But, the Petitioner (Defendant) did not keep the invoices of the goods purchased;

v. The Respondent failed to produce the charge slips regarding every purchase of goods by the Petitioner.

vi. The burden of proof is on the Respondent/Plaintiff to prove the amount of Rs.4,19,761/- representing the principal and interest as on September 2003;

vii. The copy of statement of accounts is disputed as it is not based on the charge slips and the statement of accounts referred as microfilm reference relating to the card does not reflect the charge slip number and other particulars.

viii. The Petitioner had made payments to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-. But, the Respondent had suppressed the facts.

Nevertheless, these grounds were not accep