Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Vincent Ashokan – Petitioner
Vs.
Uniq Interiors & Designs Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
CRP(NPD)No.3684 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided On : 03-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Guberan, M/s.Rank Associates
For the Respondent: Mr. S.Thankasivan
The defendant must establish a substantial defense to be entitled to unconditional leave to defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII of CPC.
Headnote:
CIVIL REVISION PETITION - Summary Suit - Order XXXVII of CPC - [FACT OF THE CASE] The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,61,914/- under Order XXXVII of CPC, 1908 as a summary suit. The defendant filed an Interlocutory Application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of CPC seeking unconditional leave to defend the suit. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the defendant failed to establish a substantial defense and was not entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit. [ISSUES] The court analyzed whether the suit fell within the ambit of Order XXXVII of CPC and whether the defendant had a valid defense. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mechalec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation and held that the defendant must have a good defense to be entitled to unconditional leave to defend. [FINAL DECISION] The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, confirming the order passed in I.A.No.8534 of 2012 in O.S.No.1038 of 2012, dated 19.07.2012.
1. The defendant in O.S.No.1038 of 2012, on the file of the IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the revision petitioner before this Court. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.8534 of 2012 in O.S.No.1038 of 2012, dated 19.07.2012.
2. The suit in O.S.No.1038 of 2012 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of amount of Rs.4,61,914/-, together with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the Principal amount of Rs.4,52,857/- from the date of plaint till the date of payment of the said sum.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is carrying on the trade of Furniture, Interior Design, Fashion-accessories, etc. The defendant in the suit and his wife were well known to the plaintiff Company Director M/s.Sona Heiden and in view of the said acquaintance, the Defendant offered to give his property at No.12, Old No.24, Ground Floor, 2nd Cross Street, Trustpuram, Chennai-24 to the plaintiff Company on lease and in the month of March 2011, the defendant had executed a Lease Deed dated 01.03.2011 in favour of the plaintiff company and granted a lease of all that ground floor measuring to an extent of 2300 sq. ft. in New Door No.12, Old No.24, 2nd Cross Street, Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24 for a period of 11 months.
4. The plaintiff further states that the defendant also agreed to let out the premises for a monthly rent of Rs.75,000/- exclusive of maintenance charges of Rs.5,000/-, electricity, water consumption charges payable separately by the plaintiff that the said lease deed, the defendant received a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as a security deposit/rental advance under a Cheque bearing No.483987 dated 20.07.2010 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, T.Nagar Branch, Chennai-600 017. Though the plaintiff has run the company could not able to continue his business in the premises beyond 30.09.2011. Therefore, during the month of June 2011 itself, the plaintiff company informed the defendant in respect of their intention to vacate the premises during September 2011 and accordingly they vacated the said premises on 30.09.2011. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were agreed that the monthly rent and maintenance charges from the month of June 2011 to September 2011 shall be adjusted from the rental advance available with the defendant. After adjusting the monthly rental, Tax Deductable at Source on the monthly rental and maintenance charges, the defendant became due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,52,857/- to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has sent a statement of account to the defendant during October 2011 along with a request to return the said balance amount has been due. But, there was no response from the defendant and hence, the plaintiff has called upon the defendant to pay the said sum amount by sending the details of the amount payable by way of e-mail dated 26.10.2011. On receipt of the same, the defendant has sent a reply mail dated 28.10.2011 giving a very vague reply. Therefore, on 29.10.2011, the plaintiff's Director sent an E-mail calling upon the defendant with a request not to dodge the issue and making payment of Rs.4,52,857/- honestly, but, subsequently, there was no response from the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of amount of Rs.4,61,914/- in which Rs.4,52,857/- towards principal and Rs.9,057/- towards interest from October 2011 to January 2012 together with further interest at the rate of 24% per annum, on the Principal amount of Rs.4,52,857/- from the date of plaint till the date of payment of the said amount. The said suit has been filed under Order XXXVII of C.P.C., 1908 as summary suit.
5. On receipt of the summon in the suit, the defendant who is the petitioner herein has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.8534 of 2012 under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of C.P.C. to grant unconditional leave to the defendant to defend the above suit.
6. The defendant has raised the ground by saying that the suit is not maintainabl
