IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.
Gangisetty Krishna Kishore - Petitioner
Versus
Kaluburigi Bala Maheswara Rao - Respondent
CRP No. 374 of 2021
Decided On : 28-04-2022
CIVIL REVISION PETITION - Order-37 Rule 3 (5) of CPC - The court allowed the defendant to defend the suit but directed the defendant to furnish security to the tune of the suit claim. The defendant challenged the part of the order related to furnishing security through this civil revision petition.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a summary suit for recovery of the suit claim. The defendant filed an application under Order-37 Rule-3 (5) of CPC to defend the suit, which was allowed by the trial court with the condition of furnishing security to the tune of the suit claim within one month.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that although the defendant raised triable issues, he was not entitled to unconditional leave to defend. The court modified the order, directing the defendant to furnish security for an amount of Rs.50 lakhs instead of the suit claim amount.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant should be granted unconditional leave to defend the suit or be directed to furnish security to the tune of the suit claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the relationship between the parties, the business as alleged, and the whatsapp messages. It relied on the principles laid in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., 2016 CJ (SC) 1160 = AIR 2016 SC 5321 to determine that the defendant was not entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of, confirming the order with the modification that the defendant was directed to furnish security for an amount of Rs.50 lakhs instead of the suit claim amount.
ORDER :
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 12.02.2021 in IA No.340 of 2020 in OS No.179 of 2020 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. This application in IA No.340 of 2020 was filed under Order-37 Rule 3 (5) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to defend the suit. The trial Court has allowed the said application by granting leave to the defendant to defend the suit. However, the defendant was directed to furnish security to a tune of suit claim within one month from the date of the order. This part of the order as to furnishing security is under challenge through this civil revision petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the material available on record. Detailed submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court.
4. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed summary suit for recovery of the suit claim. Notice was served on the defendant, on appearing before the trial Court the defendant has filed an application under Order-37 Rule-3 (5) of CPC, vide IA No.340 of 2020, and it was allowed granting leave to the defendant to defend his case by filing written statement on condition of furnishing security to the tune of suit claim within one month from the date of the order.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ defendant seeks to submit that the Court is entitled to grant leave to the defendant to defend the suit unconditionally or on terms. If the facts of the suit disclose a triable issue and that the defence intended to be put up is not frivolous or vexatious, the trial Court is not justified in putting such conditions.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has opposed the said application before the trial Court though the trial Court has failed to arrive at a conclusion that there is substantial defence to raise on behalf of the defendant and there is no such defence unless he is directed to furnish security to the tune of suit claim, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury and relied n the principles laid in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., 2016 CJ (SC) 1160 = AIR 2016 SC 5321 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at para-18.2 that if the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence, although not a positively good defence, the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment, and the defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
7. As discussed above, in the present case, though the defendant has raised triable issue, in my considered opinion, he is not entitled for unconditional leave to defend. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, nature of the relationship between the parties and the business as alleged including the whatsapp messages, I deem it fit and proper to direct the defendant to furnish security to the extent of Rs.50 lakhs instead of suit claim of Rs.87,59,050/-. With the above modification, the order impugned is confirmed
8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the order dated 12.02.2021 in IA No.340 of 2020 in OS No.179 of 2020 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, with modification that the defendant is directed to furnish security for an amount of Rs.50 lakhs instead to the tune of suit claim, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.
The court has the discretion to grant leave to the defendant to defend a suit unconditionally or on terms, based on the presence of triable issues and the nature of the defense.
Leave to defend in summary suits should be granted unless the defense is clearly frivolous or lacks substance, ensuring fair opportunity for defendants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the respective rights and contentions in granting leave to defend a summary suit, ensuring expeditious disposal of commercial d....
Leave to defend under Order XXXVII CPC granted conditionally when triable issues raised, despite summary dismissal by trial court.
The specificity of the security amount and the pending nature of the suit are crucial factors in determining the validity of prescriptive attachment for non-furnishing of security in a recovery of mo....
The main legal point established is that the court has the discretion to impose conditions, such as filing indemnity/surety bonds, when granting leave to defend under Order XXXVII CPC to safeguard th....
The maintainability of a Civil Revision Petition against the dismissal of an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC and the importance of providing proof of ownership in attachment before judgment ....
The Court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Order XXXVII, Rule 3 (5) of CPC, which allows the granting of leave to defend a suit unconditionally or upon just terms, considering the n....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.