Point of Law :
scope of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very narrow. The High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with an order, only to keep the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it within the bounds of their authority and to ensure that law is followed by such Tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. Apart from the above, High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence, when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, challenging the order, dated 14.03.2019, passed in I.A.No.816 of 2018 in O.S.No.648 of 2018, by the XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, whereby, the subject interlocutory application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking unconditional leave to defend the subject summary suit in O.S.No.648 of 2018 filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff, was allowed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.

3. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in the subject Original suit. The parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

4. The plaintiff filed the subject summary suit in O.S.No.648 of 2018 before the Court below against the defendant under Order XXXVII read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for recovery of an amount of Rs.28,25,159/- along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. Upon receipt of summons in the subject summary suit, the defendant filed the subject interlocutory application in I.A.No.816 of 2018 before the Court below under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of C.P.C. seeking unconditional leave to defend the summary suit, contending as follows:

“The subject summary suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, as the plaintiff has suppressed several facts. The plaintiff has relied on a manipulated document, dated 01.04.2012, which is called as "rate contract with terms and conditions". In fact, said document is only a “Quotation” and it was tampered by the plaintiff. The said document does not contain the signature of the defendant. Originally, plaintiff is an agent of Air Canada Cargo. Defendant is a private limited company engaged in export of bulk drugs. The defendant engages services of plaintiff for export of its products. The plaintiff, in turn, engages the services of general sales agent of principal carriers such as Air Canada Cargo and ships the goods to international destinations. In the month of August, 2015, defendant has utilized the services of plaintiff and goods valued USD 31,325 were sent to Brazil. Said goods were neither handed over to the consignee in Brazil nor the consignee intimated about the arrival of the goods. On enquiry, plaintiff informed the defendant that Air Canada Cargo, which was engaged by the plaintiff to send the goods of defendant to Brazil, has failed to manifest the goods and due to the negligence of Air Canada Cargo engaged by plaintiff, entire consignment was confiscated by Brazilian Customs authorities. Though the defendant insured the consignment, the insurer refused to entertain any claim, as the consignment was neither destroyed nor lost, but was only seized by customs authorities due to the negligence of the airline engaged by the plaintiff i.e., Air Canada Cargo. Therefore, defendant not only lost the consignment, but also lost business and goodwill and suffered loss of Rs.40 Lakhs in the entire transaction. Plaintiff, being agent of Air Canada Cargo, is vicariously liable for the loss suffered by defendant. Defendant has also filed suit in O.S.No.226 of 2016 against Air Canada Cargo on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and in the said suit, defendant has not made the plaintiff as party, as the plaintiff assured the defendant that he will cooperate with the defendant by all means. Since February, 2006, till April, 2016, defendant has transacted with plaintiff on 797 occasions and provided business of Rs.2,85,16,512/- to plaintiff. Since March/April, 2016, plaintiff resorted to unfair trade practices such as withholding post export documents such as Airway bills, exchange control copies of shipping bills and applications for removal of excisable goods bills etc., which