CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 08 DEL CK 0415

Zahir Abbas Ansari vs Sushila Jain

Delhi High Court · Decided on 28 August 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Regular First Appeal No. 717 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 341 words

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM No. 34854/2018 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

CM stands disposed of.

CM No. 34855/2018 (delay in re-filing)

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

RFA No. 717/2018 & CM No. 34853/2018 (stay)

1.

This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Order of

the Trial Court dated 18.1.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the Order XXXVII CPC suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff on account of non-

compliance of the conditional order of the leave to defend dated 12.10.2017. By the Order dated 12.10.2017 appellant/defendant was given leave to

defend on the appellant/defendant depositing a sum of Rs.20 lacs in the form of an FDR in the Court. Deposit was to be made within two weeks from

12.10.2017. Since till 18.1.2018, the necessary deposit was not made, therefore, by the impugned order the suit under Order XXXVII CPC has been

decreed.

2.

As per Order XXXVII Rule 3 Sub Rule 6(b) CPC in case of non-compliance by a defendant of the order granting conditional leave to defend, a

plaintiff is entitled to a judgment forthwith. Admittedly, the order granting conditional leave to defend dated 12.10.2017 has become final and was not

challenged by the appellant/defendant. Even in this appeal, the challenge is only to the order dated 18.1.2018 decreeing the suit as per the provision of

Order XXXVII Rule 3 Sub Rule 6(b) CPC.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant does not dispute that appellant/defendant has not complied with the order dated 12.10.2017 granting

conditional leave to defend by depositing a sum of Rs.20 lacs in the trial court in the form of an FDR. The suit was a suit for recovery of money on

account of goods supplied being threads and which supply was secured by cheques which were dishonoured and resultantly Order XXXVII CPC suit.

4.

There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.