The court ruled that a summary suit under Order 37 requires a real defense to grant leave, emphasizing that established judgments on fixed debts must be honored without further deliberation.

ORDER

The Applicant's claim for a leave to defend the Suit having been rejected, approached this Court by way of a Civil Revision Petition and the same had also been dismissed, by order of this Court on 29.07.2024 against which the present Review Application is filed.

2. The Applicant mainly raised an issue in this Review Application that this Court while dealing with the Civil Revision Petition filed by the applicant had not dealt with the various judgments relied upon by him and that the refusal to grant leave was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Review Applicant further contended that, when several triable issues have been raised, the applicant was entitled for an unconditional leave to defend. Surprisingly, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant also raised an issue that the order of this Court which sought to be reviewed is a judgment per incuriam. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would vehemently contend that this Court while dealing with the issue had directed the applicant to deposit a conditional sum as a pre-condition for defending the Suit.

3. It is to be noted that a summary Suit under Order 37, is instituted for recovery of a debt or liquidated damages or the money payable by a person,if the same arises:-

a) On a written contract;

b) on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty, or

c) on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only;

d) Suit for recovery of receivables instituted by an assignee of a receivable.

4.In the present case, the Suit had been filed based on a claim under an enactment and the sum that is sought to be recovered is a sum fixed under the proceedings initiated by the respondent against the applicant for fixation of a fair rent. The said proceedings had culminated to a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court at the behest of the applicant and the same had been dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to vacate and hand over the property. Hence, the fair rent fixed for the property, which had been admittedly leased by the respondent to the applicant had attained the finality and the same would mean that the amount that is sought to be recovered in the present Suit from the applicant, is the fixed sum of rent under the Tamil Nadu Buildings and Lease Rent Control Act and therefore, this Court had given a categorical finding while disposing of the Civil Revision Petition that there needs no deliberations in the Suit, as the fair rent had been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In such a matter, the claim made by the applicant that this Court had directed payment of a particular sum as a pre- condition to defend him, is wholly imaginary.

5.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant had strenuously contended that this Court had not given any reason as to why the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the applicant cannot be applied to the present case while disposing of the Civil Revision Petition and had also specifically contended that in view of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the order sought to be reviewed is an order per incuriam.

6.It is to be noted that this Court only after analysing the various principles laid down in the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and as also this Court on the issue relating to the right to claim for a leave to defend, had come to a conclusion on the basis of various admitted facts that the applicant was not entitled for a leave to defend. In fact, this Court had extracted the statement of facts and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant failed to note that the judgments relied upon by him itself would show that when an application for leave to defend had been filed, the test that is to be applied is to see whether