Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. JAICHANDREN & M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
S. Ramesh Babu, Proprietor of Kanagarathna Movies
Versus
P. Changaiah Proprietor, Ravi Prasad Unit
Original Side Appeal No. 66 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided on : 30-04-2013
Order VII Rule 7 - Summary Suit - Order VII Rule 1, Order VII Rule 6, Order VII Rule 7 - The court discussed the provisions contained in Order VII of Madras High Court Original Side Rules and analyzed the facts of the case. The appellant filed a summary suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,84,58,710/- along with interest. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 7 of the Original Side Rules, seeking leave to defend the suit. The application was dismissed by the learned single Judge, and the challenge was made before the court. The court discussed the scope of Order VII, the procedure to be followed in a summary proceeding, and the maintainability of the application. The court held that the attempt made by the appellant to import Order VII Rule 6 into Order VII Rule 7 cannot be accepted. The court also discussed the maintainability of the appeal and held that an appeal against the decision rendered under Order VII Rule 7 of the Original Side Rules is certainly appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Fact of the Case:
A summary suit was filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,84,58,710/- along with interest. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 7 of the Original Side Rules seeking leave to defend the suit, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The challenge was made before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's attempt to import Order VII Rule 6 into Order VII Rule 7 cannot be accepted. The court also held that an appeal against the decision rendered under Order VII Rule 7 of the Original Side Rules is certainly appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Issues: The issues discussed by the court included the scope of Order VII, the procedure to be followed in a summary proceeding, the maintainability of the application, and the appeal against the decision rendered under Order VII Rule 7 of the Original Side Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the attempt made by the appellant to import Order VII Rule 6 into Order VII Rule 7 cannot be accepted. The court also held that an appeal against the decision rendered under Order VII Rule 7 of the Original Side Rules is certainly appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Final Decision: The Original Side Appeal was dismissed by the court, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
M.M. Sundresh, J.
1. An interesting legal issue has arisen in this appeal touching upon the provisions contained in Order VII of Madras High Court Original Side Rules. As it is also imperative to analyse the facts, both the issues governing law and fact are discussed here under.
2. Background facts:
2.1. A summary suit was filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order XXXVII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code towards the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,84,58,710/- along with the interest.
2.2. The plaintiff has been running the business of supplying film shooting equipments. There was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff's case is that supplies have been made to the defendant. The plaintiff maintained a running account in the name of the defendant. The defendant paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees thirty lakhs only) on 07.05.2007, which was duly credited to his account. Thereafter, further services of the plaintiff were availed. A subsequent payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) was made on 01.10.2007, which was also credited to his account.
2.3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after the settlement of accounts, it was agreed between the parties that a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-has to be paid by the defendant towards the full and final settlement of the dues. In discharge of the liability, three cheques have been issued for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-each by the defendant on 25.12.2009, 04.01.2010 and 31.07.2010 respectively. It was also agreed between the parties that no interest would be charged for the interregnum period. The cheques issued by the defendant got dishonoured. The defendant issued 'stop payment' instruction to the bank. As the liability was on the cheques, a suit was duly laid as a summary suit.
2.4. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendant from releasing, executing and exploiting the Telugu picture "KOMARAM PULI" produced by the defendant. On 25.08.2011, after directing the defendant to execute the bank guarantee for the suit amount, the learned single Judge passed the following order.
" This Court passed an order in O.A.No.956 of 2010 on 07.09.2010. At the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/applicant, this application has been posted before me once again "for being mentioned".
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents including the order passed by this Court on 07.09.2010.
3. In this application, an order was passed on 07.09.2010 by me and the operative portion of the order is extracted below:
"4. In the mean time, to secure the interest of the plaintiff, the defendant shall execute a Bank Guarantee for the suit claim of Rs.1,04,58,710/- in favour of the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, immediately. It is also further undertaken to this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/defendant that in the event of some delay in executing the bank Guarantee, the picture shall not be released without executing the Bank Guarantee as stated above and an endorsement has also been made to that effect by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant in application No.4972 of 2010. The respondent/defendant is present before this Court and he has also signed in the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.
5. On such execution of the Bank Guarantee, the learned counsel may make a mention before this Court and thereafter post the matter for further orders to be passed. Since the suit is filed under Order 37 Rule 1 of C.P.C., the Registry may expedite the suit and post it for trial, if need be, on or before 19th January, 2011."
4. In view of the order passed in paragraph-5 as mentioned above, it is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
