-1

122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 03.09.2025 M/S S.P. SURGICAL & EQUIPMENT CO. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. RAKESH KUMAR VERMA AND ANOTHER ......PETITIONERS Vs.

SAGAR GAUDANI AND OTHERS .........RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Harlove Singh Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioners alongwith Ms. Supriya Arora, petitioner No. 2 is present in person.

*****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) is for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-13), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula, whereby the application for leave to defend filed by defendants No. 2 to 7 was allowed without imposing any condition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-firm, M/s SP Surgical & Equipment Company through its authorized signatory, along with others, filed a civil suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC for recovery ₹

of 44,40,000/- along with interest against the defendants, namely, Sagar Gaudani and others. Notice of the suit was given to the -2 defendants/respondents. In pursuance thereof, defendants No. 2 to 7 appeared, whereas defendant No. 1 was proceeded against ex parte. On appearance, defendants No. 2 to 7 moved applications under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the CPC seeking leave to defend and contest the suit. 2.1 Notice of the said applications was given to the plaintiffs/petitioners, who filed their reply. Ultimately, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula allowed the said applications and granted leave to defend to the contesting defendants unconditionally.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-13) is cryptic, inasmuch as the learned Civil Judge could and should have imposed conditions, such as directing the defendants to deposit at least 50% of the suit amount. Thus, it is argued that unconditional leave to defend ought not to have been granted.

4. On this point, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Uma Shankar Kamal Narain and another vs. M/s M.D. Overseas Ltd., 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 585.

5. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to the respondents, as it would delay the proceedings besides entailing additional expense to them.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners and perused the paper-book.

7. As noticed, a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC ₹

for recovery of 44,10,000/- along with interest was filed by the present petitioners against the respondents-defendants. In their application for -3 leave to defend, the defendants specifically contended that the suit was based on frivolous averments, filed only with the intent to grab money from them, and that nothing was due. At the same time, the defendants submitted that they would lead evidence at the trial in case unconditional leave to defend was granted.

8. The learned lower court, in its order dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-13), categorically held that, in the interest of justice, permission to defend ought to be granted, as triable issues were involved and appreciation of evidence would be necessary for effective adjudication.

Accordingly, leave to defend was granted unconditionally.

9. Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) of the CPC is reproduced as under:-

3. Procedure for the appearance of defendants-(1)……..

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx “(5) The defendant may, at any time within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, by affidavit or otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the Court or Judge to be just:

 Provided that leave to de