Back
1985 Supreme(Ori) 125
High Court Of Orissa
D. P. MOHAPATRA
PANKAJA PADHAN - Appellant
Versus
RANJIT PADHAN - Respondent
CIV. REVN. 579 Of 1982
Decided On : 06/24/1985
B.RATH, J.P.MISHRA
A suit for recovery of a debt or liquidated demand arising on a written contract is maintainable under Order 37, CPC, even if the contract is oral.
Headnote:
ORDER 37, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - APPLICABILITY TO SMALL CAUSE COURTS - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF DEBT OR LIQUIDATED DEMAND - MAINTAINABILITY:
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit under the provisions of the Small Cause Courts Act for the recovery of a debt of Rs. 450/- from the defendants, alleging that they had purchased 115 pieces of gourds from him and promised to pay the price within a week. The defendants denied the allegations and contended that the suit was not maintainable under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code (CPC), as it was based on an oral contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was maintainable under Order 37, CPC, as it fell within the category of suits for recovery of a debt or liquidated demand arising on a written contract. The court noted that the Small Cause Courts Act provides that the procedure prescribed in the CPC shall be followed in all suits cognizable by it, and that Order 37, CPC, applies to Courts of Small Causes.
Issues: Whether the suit was maintainable under Order 37, CPC, as it was based on an oral contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was maintainable under Order 37, CPC, as it fell within the category of suits for recovery of a debt or liquidated demand arising on a written contract. The court noted that the Small Cause Courts Act provides that the procedure prescribed in the CPC shall be followed in all suits cognizable by it, and that Order 37, CPC, applies to Courts of Small Causes.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the defendants, challenging the maintainability of the suit under Order 37, CPC.
D. P. MOHAPATRA, J.
( 1 ) THE defendants in SCC Case No. 13/1 of 1982 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bargarh, have filed this application under S. 115, Civil P. C. challenging the order dt. 22-4-1982 decreeing the said suit.
( 2 ) THE opposite party filed the suit for realisation of a sum of Rs. 450/- together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that on 7-9-1981 the defendants purchased 115 pieces of grounds (Makhan) from the plaintiff for Rs. 450/- and promised to pay the price for the same within a week. After lapse of about one and half months on being reminded several times the defendants offered to pay Rs. 200/- only on the plea that the grounds being rotten could not be marketed. The plaintiff refused to accept the amount. On these allegations the plaintiff prayed for realisation of Rs. 450/- together with interest from the defendant towards the price of the gourds supplied to them. In para 5 of the plaint it was stated that no relief has been claimed in the suit which does not come under O. 37, Civil P. C. The petitioners in their written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint. They denied to have either received 115 gourds from the plaintiff on 7-9-1981 or to have made any promise for payment of Rs. 450/- within a week as alleged by the plaintiff. They also denied to have made any offer to pay Rs. 250/-to the plaintiff towards the price of the gourds. In para ten of the written statement defendants took the plea that the suit was not maintainable under O. 37, Civil P. C.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff examined 3 witnesses in support of his case. One witness was examined on behalf of the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge framed 3 issues, discussed the materials on record under different issues and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to receive Rs. 450/- from the defendants towards the price of the gourds. The Court rejected the contention raised on behalf of the defendants regarding maintainability of the suit. This order of the trial Court is under challenge in the revision petition.
( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Court below has erred in rejecting the plea raised on behalf of the defendants that the suit was not maintainable under O. 37, Civil P. C. He further contends that since the plaintiff's claim is based on an oral contract between the parties the suit does not come within the purview of O. 37, Civil P. C. Reference is made to the provisions under O. 37, R. 1 (2), Civil P. C. The learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand contends that there is no infirmity in the impugned order since the Court has taken a correct decision in rejecting the plea of the defendants questioning jurisdiction of the Court.
( 5 ) IN view of the contentions of the parties noticed above, the sole question that falls for consideration is whether the suit comes within the purview of O. 37, R. 1, Civil P. C. The said provision reads as follows :-1. Courts and classes of suits to which the Order is to apply: (1) This Order shall apply to the following Courts, namely - (a) High Courts, City Civil Courts and Courts of Small Causes; and (b) Other Courts; provided that in respect of the Courts referred to in Cl. (b) the High Court may, by notification in the Official Gazette, restrict the operation of this order only to such categories of suits as it deems proper, and may also, from time to time, as the circumstances of the case may require, by subsequent notification in the Official Gazette, further restrict, enlarge or vary, the categories of suits to be brought under the operation of this Order as it deems proper. 2. Subject to the provisions of sub-r. (1) the Order applies to the following classes of suits, namely :- (a) suits upon bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes. (b) suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money paya
