Revision petition against an order treating a loan recovery suit as ordinary due to lack of written contract. Court allowed revision, set aside order, and treated suit under Order XXXVII CPC based on bank transfer evidence.
Impugned order dated 06.10.2023 set aside; suit treated under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC; summons to defendant ordered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~11
ABHISHEK GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Amrita Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
JITENDER MANN @JEEVAN MANN ..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
O R D E R % 14.02.2024
“This Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC and ought to be treated as an ordinary suit for the following reasons:
1 CPC
2 Trial Court
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 17/12/2024 at 15:23:27
Further, it is not the ratio of the case relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that even in absence of a written contract solely on the basis of liquidated demand, a case under Order XXXVII CPC will be maintainable.
In view of the above, the present suit is hereby treated as an ordinary suit.
Issue summons of the suit for settlement of the issues to the defendant on filing of PF/RC/Speed Post and Approved Courier Service for 02.11.2023.
Process be given dasti as well, as prayed for by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.”
3 Real Time Gross Settlement
4 CRP 57/2020 dated 15.12.2020
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 17/12/2024 at 15:23:27
the defendant was sufficient for grant of leave and suit was allowed to be continued as an ordinary suit subject to the defendant furnishing a Bank Guarantee. Similar, view appears to have been taken by this Court in case Anju & Anr. v. Rampal & Anr.5
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
FEBRUARY 14, 2024/ sm
5 CS(OS) 1159/2014 dated 11.04.2019
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 17/12/2024 at 15:23:27
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit based on a loan evidenced by bank transfers and interest payments is maintainable as an ordinary suit or under Order XXXVII CPC in absence of a written contract.
Whether the impugned order treating the suit as an ordinary suit sought to be quashed per Section 47 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surender Kumar v. Manoj KumarRelied on¶24
Surender Kumar v. Manoj Kumar
Anju & Anr. v. Rampal & Anr.Relied on¶29
Anju & Anr. v. Rampal & Anr.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Abhishek Gupta
Jitender Mann
Dharmesh Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
