Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Netrapal Singh vs Ravinder Kumar Kalyani on 25 July, 2019
Author: Uday Umesh Lalit
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5852 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.8823 of 2019)
NETRAPAL SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
RAVINDER KUMAR KALYANI & ANR. Respondents
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal seeks to challenge the Order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.R.P.No.37 of 2019.
In a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of a liability arising out of issuance of a Cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only), the Trial Court had granted unconditional leave to defend to the defendants in question. Said order was carried in revision by the original plaintiff before the High Court.
While considering the revision at the admission stage, the Signature Not Verified High Court dismissed the suit itself. Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.07.26
It was held that the Suit as 18:42:51 IST Reason:
...2/ 2 filed was beyond limitation and therefore instead of granting unconditional leave to defend, the Trial Court should have exercised power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It was observed:-
“...Thus, the Ld. ‘ADJ’, instead of granting the leave to defend to the respondents, should have exercised its jurisdiction to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for being barred under the law of limitation.
13. As such, I do not find any merit in the revision petition, which is dismissed along with CM No.6334/2019 with no order as to costs. As a result, the Civil Suit bearing No.192/2018 filed by the petitioner and pending before the Ld. ‘ADJ’ stands dismissed with directions that the parties shall bear their own costs.” The scope of the matter before the High Court was completely limited and the matter ought to have been confined to the issue whether the leave to defend was rightly granted or not. In our view, the High Court ought not to have dismissed the suit itself.
We, therefore, set-aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the revision petition before the High Court, which may be disposed of in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
.................................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] .................................J. [VINEET SARAN] NEW DELHI;
JULY 25, 2019.
3
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8823/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-03-2019 in CRP No.37/2019 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) NETRAPAL SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAVINDER KUMAR KALYANI & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; and, IA No.57394/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 25-07-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Preeti Singh, AOR Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Adv.
Ms. Swati Jindal, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Jaiswal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv.
Mr. J.N. Patel, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv.
Mr. Robin Khokhar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal stands allowed, in terms of the signed judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed Judgment is placed on the File)