Kangayam Chenniappa Palanisamy vs Anwesh Madhukar on 25 February, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Kangayam Chenniappa Palanisamy vs Anwesh Madhukar on 25 February, 2026

1. An Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the Order dated 06.01.2026 whereby the Review Application filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff Anwesh Madhukar was allowed and the Order dated 01.09.2025 granting unconditional Leave to Defendant in Summary Suit bearing CS DJ No.200/2025 was recalled and the Suit of the Respondent was decreed in the sum of Rs.65,16,100/-.

2. The brief background is that the Respondent/Plaintiff had filed a Suit under Order XXXVII for Recovery of Rs.65,16,100/- along with pedente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum against the Defendant/Appellant. It was stated that professional services were rendered by the Plaintiff by way of drafting appearances before the Judicial/quasi-Judicial Forums etc on specific instructions/advice of the Defendant/Appellant for which invoices were duly raised at mutually agreed rates during the period from 19.02.2016 till 03.10.2023 for which payments were made till 05.10.2023 when Rs.2,38,750/- were last paid towards on account payment.

3. The Plaintiff explained that he had raised 97 invoices from 19.02.216 till 03.10.2023 including invoices on behalf of N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:12:44 for a total sum of Rs.1,24,42,000/-. The Defendant had paid an amount of Rs.59,25,900/- leaving a balance of Rs.65,16,100/- payable to the Plaintiff. It was stated that the Defendant in his email dated 29.11.2023 acknowledged the payment of Rs.59,25,900/- against the invoices raised by the Plaintiff. However, he admitted only Rs.40,10,000/- as due and payable by apparently mis-calculating the total value of 97 invoices as Rs.99,35,900/- instead of Rs.1,24,42,000/-. Despite repeated requests, the Respondent failed to make the payments in terms of the invoices.

4. Consequently, the Suit for Recovery of Rs.65,16,100/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 06.12.2023 was filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXVII CPC.

5. The Leave to Defend was filed on behalf of the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of law which was allowed unconditionally by the learned District Judge vide Order dated 01.09.2025, after considering the rival contentions of both the parties. Learned District Judge observed that there were triable issues raised by the Defendant/appellant in regard to territorial jurisdiction, inflated charges for service, no written terms of agreement for engagement of Plaintiff, not adjusting amount already paid and other issues as were mentioned in the Leave to Defend Application and it was held that issues raised in the Leave to Defend Application probalized that the Defendant had a good case on merits which warrant that the matter be put to trial. Consequently, the Leave to Defend was allowed unconditionally and the matter was fixed for completion of pleadings, admission/denial of document, settlement of issues and further proceedings.

6. Evidently, the pleadings were completed and the case was at the stage This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:12:44 of framing of issues when a Review Application was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff, wherein the Review of the Order dated 01.09.2025 granting unconditional leave to defend was sought, on the grounds that the Judgments relied upon by the Plaintiff and the submissions made have not been considered by the learned Trial Court and consequently, the impugned order be reviewed.

7. It was asserted that the Plaintiff/Respondent had relied upon various decisions including of Srinivasan Ganesh vs. Baroda Cricket Association 2024 SCC Online del 5853, which has not been considered while passing the Impugned Order. Therefore, in the light of the decision of Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. vs. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 67, it amounts to error apparent on the face of the record.

8. The Ld. District Judge, vide Impugned Order dated 06.01.26 reviewed the Order dated 01.09.2025 and after re-appreciation of all the facts and contentions observed that there was no triable issue raised in the Leave to Defend Application and dismissed the Leave to Defend Application and decreed the Suit.

9. Aggrieved by the Order dated 06.01.26, the present Appeal has been preferred. The grounds of challenge are that, the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 is liable to be set aside because the Ld. District Court exceeded the limited jurisdiction of Review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1CCby entertaining a re-argument on merits in the guise of "error apparent", even though Review is not an Appeal and cannot be used to rehear, reappreciate, or substitute a view as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927).

10. It is submitted that, the Ld. Court further erred in treating non-

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:12:44 consideration of Srinivasan Ganesh v. Baroda Cricket Association (2024 SCC OnLine Del 5853) as a patent error apparent, and required consideration.

11. It is submitted that the original Order dated 01.09.2025 granting Leave to Defend was a reasoned Order, and its recall through Review followed by decreeing the Suit has wrongly short-circuited adjudication despite multiple bona fide triable issues on quantum, reconciliation of invoices/payments, alleged admissions in emails, the nature of engagement and maintainability under Order XXXVII (including absence of written contract), and territorial jurisdiction.

12. It is also submitted that even if the Court had doubts about the defence, the settled law on Summary Suits is that grant of leave is the rule and denial is an exception; where triable issues exist, at the highest, conditional Leave may be granted rather than refusing Leave and decreeing the Suit, the denial is ordinarily justified only when no genuine triable issue is raised and the defence is frivolous or vexatious, as explained in B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. v. JMS Steels & Power Corpn. (2022) 3 SCC 294. Submissions Heard and Record Perused:

13. The main ground of reviewing the Impugned Order dated 01.09.2025 granting Leave to Defend, was that the Judgements relied by the Respondent/Plaintiff to contest the Leave to Defend Application, were not considered by the Id. District judge. Reliance was placed on Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. (supra), wherein the Supreme Court had held that an omission to consider the contentions of a party, are manifest errors and hence, amenable to review jurisdiction.

14. Before considering the Impugned Order on merits, it may be This is a digitally signed order.

15. The First judgement was of Srinivasan Ganesh (supra), wherein the Apex Court had discussed in detail the parameters for consideration of Leave to Defend Application and had dismissed the Leave to Defend Application by observing that the grounds raised in the Application for Leave to Defend, were frivolous and vexatious.

16. The aforesaid judgment merely expounds the scope of factors to be considered while deciding Leave to Defend Applications and held that, where the contentions are not considered it may be deemed as an error apparent on the face of record.

17. In the present case, all the facts on which the Leave to Defend were duly considered by the learned District Judge in the Order dated 01.09.2025, wherein it was held as under:

"32. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, law laid down in the case IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v/s Hubtown Ltd. (supra) and the contentions and rival contentions of Ld counsel for the parties, in respect of issues raised by the defendant regarding territorial jurisdiction, inflated charges for service, no written terms of agreement for engagement of plaintiff, not adjusting amount already paid, and other issues as enumerated above, all such facts to my mind probalizes that the defendant has a good case on merits which warrants that the matter be put to trial."

18. From this Order granting Leave to Defend, it is evident that the learned District Judge has taken into consideration the various grounds taken by the Defendant/Appellant seeking the Leave to Defend which included inflated charges for service, no written Agreement of Engagement, no adjustment amounts and other issues, enumerated in the Leave to Defend Application, while granting the unconditional Leave.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:12:44

19. The Impugned Order dated 06.01.2026 allowing the Review Petition and decreeing the Suit of the Respondent, makes an interesting reading. The learned District Judge has re-appreciated the facts in regard to 97 Invoices amounting to Rs.124,42,000/- and the assertions of the Appellant about the return of Rs.59,25,900/- and also his contentions about having paid Rs.10,03,750/- leaving a liability of Rs.10,10,000/-.

20. He had also considered the other contentions made in the Leave to Defend Application about the fee being paid to the Senior Advocate, and also Rs.23,40,000/- in which a Bill had been raised exclusively for three Election Commission matters.

21. It is quite evident from the perusal of the Impugned Order dated 06.01.2026 that it was not as if some contention of the Plaintiff was not considered; rather it emerges that the contents of the Leave to Defend Application and the counter-submissions of the Plaintiff, were re- appreciated on merits to upset the Order dated 01.09.2025 giving an unconditional Leave to Defend, with the Decree of the Suit, in the garb of review of the Order.

22. The Scope of Review is limited and is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, discovering new, critical evidence, or addressing other analogous sufficient reasons. Learned Trial Court has tried to justify the Review on the ground that the contentions of the Plaintiff had not been considered, which is blatantly incorrect. As has been indicated in paragraph No.32 of the Leave to Defend Application, though the Order may not have been detailed, but all the relevant facts were considered and mentioned while granting the Leave to Defend Application.

23. The Application could have been challenged only before a Superior This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:12:44 Court and the facts could not have been re-appreciated by the same District Judge to then come to a different conclusion of there being no grounds to grant the Leave to Defend.

24. This is one case where under the garb of observing that the contentions of the Plaintiff were not considered, the learned District Judge has erroneously assumed the jurisdiction under the Review to actually re- appreciate the entire matter and to give a fresh finding on the merits of the case.

25. If the case is to be considered a fresh on merits, it is within the jurisdiction of Appeal or Revision, but definitely is not within the scope of Review under Order 47 CPC. There is a blatant jurisdictional error committed by the learned District Judge in going beyond the purview of Review Application.

26. It may be relevant to mention the contention of learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Plaintiff that Conditional Leave may be granted considering the admissions of the Appellant that a sum of Rs.40,10,000/- is admittedly due and payable. However, there was no challenge made by the Plaintiff to the Order dated 01.09.2025 vide which the Leave to Defend was granted or modification sought asking the Appellant to deposit the admitted amount.

27. Therefore, the contention of the Plaintiff that the Appellant be directed to deposit the admitted amount in the Court cannot be made in this Order. Though, the Plaintiff is at liberty to resort to the appropriate remedy that may be available to him under the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order dated 06.01.2026 is hereby set aside and the learned District Judge shall continue with the trial of the Suit at the stage at which the This is a digitally signed order.

28. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly along with the pending Applications.

29. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge - 06 (South), Saket Courts, on 17.03.2026.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

FEBRUARY 25, 2026 va This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 21:12:44

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders