9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Summary Suits under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for claims involving damages for defamation, declaration, and permanent injunction. 2. Granting of conditional leave to defend the suits on the condition of depositing significant sums of money. 3. Whether applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be decided before applications for leave to defend. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of Summary Suits under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The court examined whether the claims for damages due to defamation, along with requests for declaration and permanent injunction, could be filed as Summary Suits under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant provisions of Order 37 Rule 1(2) and Rule 2 were scrutinized, which specify that Summary Suits are applicable to suits upon bills of exchange, hundies, promissory notes, or suits to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant on a written contract, enactment, or guarantee. The judgment highlighted that the claims for damages due to defamation do not fall within the classes mentioned in Order 37 Rule 1(2). These suits involve uncertain damages that need to be ascertained through evidence, and therefore, cannot be considered as suits to recover a fixed sum of money. Additionally, the inclusion of reliefs for declaration and permanent injunction further disqualified these suits from being maintainable under Order 37. The court concluded that the issue of whether such Summary Suits are maintainable is a serious triable issue. 2. Granting of Conditional Leave to Defend: The trial court had granted conditional leave to the defendants to defend the suits on the condition of depositing substantial amounts (Rs. 15 Crores, Rs. 35 Crores, and Rs. 50 Lacs, respectively). The defendants argued that the trial court erred in not granting unconditional leave, especially given the serious triable issue regarding the maintainability of the suits under Order 37. The judgment noted that the trial court failed to properly consider the defense raised by the defendants regarding the maintainability of the suits. The court observed that when there is a serious triable issue, such as the maintainability of the suit, the defendants should be granted unconditional leave to defend. Consequently, the court found that the trial court had materially erred in imposing the condition to deposit the amounts and decided to quash the impugned orders. 3. Decision on Applications under Order 7 Rule 11: The defendants had also filed applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the rejection of the plaints, arguing that the suits were not maintainable. The trial court had deferred the decision on these applications, stating that they need not be decided before the applications for leave to defend. The judgment emphasized that applications under Order 7 Rule 11 should be considered and decided at the earliest possible stage. If it is determined that the suit is not maintainable, there would be no need to proceed with applications for leave to defend or summons for judgment. The court criticized the trial court's approach and underscored the importance of promptly addressing applications under Order 7 Rule 11. Conclusion: The court allowed the Special Civil Applications, quashing the trial court's orders that granted conditional leave to defend and instead granted unconditional leave to the defendants to defend the suits. The Civil Revision Applications filed by the plaintiffs were dismissed. The judgment underscored the necessity of addressing the maintainability of Summary Suits and the proper sequence of deciding applications under Order 7 Rule 11 before considering leave to defend.
|
