The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defendant has the right to challenge the order declining to grant leave to defend the suit under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, regardless of the right of appeal against the decree and the theory of 'dependent order.'

1. The primary question involved in this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, "Whether the right of appeal against a decree to be passed consequent upon the dismissal of an Interlocutory Application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of C.P.C., thereby, declining to grant leave to defend is a bar for the aggrieved defendant to challenge the said order by way of revision ?". The facts leading to this revision are thus.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.3413 of 2012 on the file of the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent has filed the said suit under Order 37 Rule 1 to 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a summary suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,21,691/-, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the defendant. On service of summons, the petitioner/defendant appeared before the lower Court and filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No. 13159 of 2012, seeking leave to defend the suit. The lower Court, by an order dated 10.10.2012, dismissed the said Interlocutory Application. Challenging the same, the petitioner/defendant is before this Court with this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. According to the plaint, the plaintiff is carrying on business as cargo consolidators, clearing and forwarding agents and logistics providers. In the course of business, according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was nominated as forwarder by one M/s. Fruitta-Life Beverages, having its office at No.1, Samuel Adedoyin Street, Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria, to arrange for the shipment of cargo manufactured by the defendant. For the purpose of shipping the cargo from the defendant's office in Chennai to the office of M/s. Fruitta-Life Beverages, Nigeria, the plaintiff was to supply the containers to the defendant and the defendant was obligated to stuff the cargo in the containers and thereafter, complete all the other formalities within a period of seven days. It is further contended in the plaint that on 30.07.2011, as requested by the defendant by E-Mail message dated 25.07.2011, two containers were sent for stuffing. But, the defendant took more than seven days to complete the stuffing and other formalities and therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the detention charges as per the detention rates stated hereinbelow:-

According to the plaintiff, the above are the terms and conditions relating to detention charges for detaining the containers for stuffing beyond seven days. There were also E-Mail exchanges in respect of the delay. It is further stated that the containers were made ready to be picked up by the plaintiff from the factory of the defendant on 24.09.2011 and the same were subsequently exported to M/s. Fruitta-Life Beverages, Nigeria. Thus, for the above said period of delay, as per the plaint, the defendant is liable to pay the detention charges to the tune of Rs.4,68,938.35.

4. In the Interlocutory Application filed before the lower Court seeking leave to defend the suit, the defendant submitted that there was no such agreement at all, either oral or written, under which, the defendant agreed to pay the detention charges. The defendant has further submitted that the following issues are involved in the suit, which are required to be tried.

i. Whether the plaintiff can file a suit in the absence of any written contract or oral with the defendant ?

ii. Whether the plaintiff can file a suit against this defendant when the plaintiff was appointed by a third party for the said work ?

iii. In the absence of any privity of contract between plaintiff and the defendant whether a suit is maintainable under Order XXXVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. ?

iv. Whether there is any agreement for interest between the plaintiff and defendant ?

v. Whether the document filed along with the plaint can be treated as a written contract or agreement in the absence of the signature of this defendant ?

R