Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 93 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTTime Limitation - Leave to defend - suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code - application for leave to defend has been rejected by the trial court on the ground of unexplained and inordinate delay - dishonored cheques - Held that:- In the judgment and order impugned dated March 17, 2018 the trial court recorded that on February 26, 2018 the summons were returned unserved with the postal endorsement “unclaimed” when Advocates of both the parties were present and no petition for leave to defend was filed on behalf of the defendant on the ground that the defendant did not receive the summons for judgment - The trial court held that a mere statement that some representatives of the defendant were not in station was not good enough to explain the delay of 29 days particularly in a suit for summary judgment under Order XXXVII of the Code. It does not appear that the trial court erred in law or took any irrelevant consideration into account while deciding the matter. Order XXXVII of the Code provides for strict time limits and such time limits must be adhered to. In the instant case, the entirety of the claim is founded on three dishonoured cheques. There does not appear to be any dispute that these cheques were issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is evident from the material available that the cheques were dishonoured upon presentation. In such circumstances, it would require a very high case on the part of the defendant to rebut the presumption that the amounts represented by the three cheques were not immediately payable to the opposite party-plaintiff - Since the high defence that the petitioner herein was called upon to produce before the trial court may not have been available, it is evident that dilatory tactics as avoiding to accept the service or coming in to apply for leave to defend at a belated stage were resorted to by the defendant. It is evident that the defendant had and has no defence to the claim of the opposite party. Order dismissed.
|