A dismissal of an application for leave to defend in summary suits without assessing triable defenses is improper.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 04.02.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA C.R.P.No.113 of 2025 & C.M.P.No.858 of 2025 PL.Alagumenal Palaniappan ...Petitioner Vs.

M/s.Sudarshan Foods Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Mr.V.S.Pradeep Kumar Having office at H-Block, Rams Maruthi No.24, Muthalamman Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033 ...Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the order dated 03.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.58 of 2024 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ambattur.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.J.Sri Ganesh assisted by S.Aravind For Respondent : Mr.S.Rajendrakumar

ORDER

(Parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the trial court)

Challenging the dismissal of the application seeking leave to defend, the defendant is before this Court.

2.The brief narration of the facts necessary for disposing of this civil Revision petition is given herein below:-

The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.58 of 2024 on the file of the Sub Court, Ambattur, against the defendant seeking for recovery of sum of Rs.21,24,206/- together with interest from the date of filing at 18% per annum till the date of realization of principal amount of Rs.11,26,900/-.

3.The contention of the plaintiff is that during the course of their business the plaintiff had placed an order with the defendant for supplying a Sooji/Rava fully automatic FFS packaging machine. Accordingly, the defendant had raised an invoice on the plaintiff company on 19.10.2018 and the invoice value was a sum of Rs.11,26,900/-. This amount was also paid by the plaintiff vide the demand draft bearing No.784606 dated 29.11.2018 drawn on the bank of Maharashtra. The defendant who received the said amount had failed to supply the machinery to the plaintiff. The transactions were carried out by Ashok Iyengar representing the plaintiff company. Ashok Iyengar, the Director of the plaintiff company and Palaniappan, representing the defendant. The plaintiff would submit that despite paying the entire amount, the defendant had not delivered the machinery. The said Ashok Iyengar had met the defendant on several occasions and had requested for refund. However, to no avail. Meanwhile, Ashok Iyengar passed away on 02.10.2022. On his demise, his daughter Vasuprada Iyengar was negotiating with the defendant for refund of the entire sum of Rs.11,26,900/-. Although an assurance was given for refunding the same which is also confirmed vide text messages, the defendant did not come forward to refund the amount constraining the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 06.03.2023 calling upon the defendant to pay the said sum together with interest. The defendant had sent a reply on 17.03.2023 containing a details. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit in question. The said suit was instituted as an under chapter suit (Summary suit). The defendant had on receiving the summons entered notice of appearance. Thereafter had filed the application seeking relief to defend.

4.The defendant's contention is as follows:-

a)The suit instituted under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable.

b)The plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Order 37 Rule 2 (1)

of the C.P.C as the plaintiff has made a claim for money which is not supported by any written contract or agreement.

c)As the customary practice the defendant had informed the buyer to get the laminated printed film roll from their laminate supplier for a trial running process before dispatch.

d)The defendant had