9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a suit under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code (CPC) can be filed on the basis of an "acknowledgement". 2. The validity of the written acknowledgement as a "written contract". 3. The granting of leave to defend based on the defendant's claims. Comprehensive Summary: Issue 1: Suit under Order 37, CPC based on "acknowledgement" The primary question addressed was whether a suit under Order 37, CPC could be filed on the basis of an "acknowledgement". The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 49,956.00 along with interest, based on a written acknowledgement of liability by the defendant. The defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit under Order 37, CPC, arguing that a suit on the basis of an acknowledgement is not maintainable. Issue 2: Validity of Written Acknowledgement as a "Written Contract" The court examined whether the present suit relates to the recovery of "Debt" arising out of a "written contract". The court referred to various legal definitions and precedents, including Black's Law Dictionary and previous judgments like Food Corporation of India v. BalKishan Garg, which defined "Debt" as a sum of money due by certain and express agreement. The court also considered the definition of "written contract" and "acknowledgement" from Black's Law Dictionary and Stroud's Judicial Dictionary. It was concluded that the written acknowledgement of a pre-existing debt, signed by one of the partners, constituted a written contract. The court held that the present suit was maintainable under Order 37, CPC, as it was based on a written contract for the recovery of an existing debt. Issue 3: Granting of Leave to Defend The defendant's application for leave to defend was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The defendant had not specifically denied the written acknowledgement but alleged that the plaintiff's case was based on false documents and was barred by time. The court noted that the defendant's affidavit was not reliable as it lacked specific details and verification. The defense was deemed illusory, sham, and practically a moonshine. Consequently, unconditional leave to defend could not be granted. Conclusion and Orders: The court set aside the impugned order dated 22nd April 1991, rejecting the application for leave to defend and decreeing the suit. The petitioner was directed to furnish a bank guarantee for the decretal amount within four weeks. Failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the revision petition. A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned Additional District Judge for further proceedings in accordance with the law. If the bank guarantee was not furnished, the plaintiff would be entitled to pursue the execution application.
|
