Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the trial court’s decision, which decreed a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC in favor of the respondent. The appellant’s failure to file a leave-to-defend application within the prescribed time led to the decree. The High Court further dismissed the appellant’s claims of non-receipt of summons for judgment and allegations of counsel’s misconduct, stating that such excuses were unsupported by evidence. The appeal and all accompanying applications were declared devoid of merit.
Facts of the Case:
- The Loan: The respondent claimed that the appellant had borrowed ₹4,70,000 as a friendly loan on January 5, 2018. This loan was supported by a promissory note and receipt executed by the appellant, with a repayment period of seven months.
- Failure to Repay: Despite repeated demands and the issuance of a legal notice dated August 17, 2018, the appellant failed to repay the loan amount.
- Filing of Summary Suit: The respondent filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, seeking recovery of ₹4,70,000 with interest. The trial court issued summons to the appellant in the prescribed format under Order XXXVII CPC.
- Appellant’s Appearance: The appellant entered an appearance in response to the summons but failed to file a leave-to-defend application despite service of summons for judgment.
- Trial Court’s Decree:
- On February 7, 2023, the trial court passed a judgment and decree in favor of the respondent, awarding ₹4,70,000 with pendente lite and future interest at 6% per annum.
- Application Under Rule 4:
- The appellant filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC in March 2023, alleging that summons for judgment had not been served. This application was dismissed by the trial court on April 3, 2024.
Issues for Determination:
- Whether the appellant was served with summons for judgment in accordance with law.
- Whether the appellant could rely on allegations of counsel’s misconduct to justify the failure to file a leave-to-defend application.
Petitioner’s (Appellant’s) Arguments:
- Non-Service of Summons: The appellant claimed that the summons for judgment were never served and alleged procedural irregularities in the service process.
- Counsel’s Misconduct: It was argued that the appellant’s erstwhile counsel failed to act diligently, leading to non-filing of the leave-to-defend application.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- Proper Service of Summons:
- The respondent contended that the summons for judgment were sent to the address provided by the appellant during the appearance stage.
- The summons were returned with a report stating that the appellant’s father refused to accept them.
- Appellant’s Inaction:
- The respondent emphasized that the appellant had multiple opportunities to file a leave-to-defend application but failed to act over a prolonged period.
- The trial court had even directed the appellant to supply a copy of the leave-to-defend application, but the appellant chose not to comply.
Analysis of the Law:
- Order XXXVII CPC:
- This provision governs summary suits, which are meant to expedite the resolution of cases involving clear monetary claims.
- The defendant must file a leave-to-defend application within the prescribed time after being served with summons for judgment. Failure to do so entitles the plaintiff to a decree without the need for a trial.
- Service of Summons:
- The court found that the summons for judgment were sent to the appellant’s registered address and refused by the appellant’s father, constituting valid service under the law.
- Allegations Against Counsel:
- The court emphasized that a litigant cannot rely on vague or unsubstantiated allegations of counsel’s negligence or misconduct to evade procedural obligations.
- It noted that the appellant regularly appeared before the trial court but chose not to take action, undermining the claim of being unaware of procedural requirements.
Precedent Analysis:
- The court referred to prior rulings, emphasizing that:
- Litigants cannot escape the consequences of procedural lapses by blaming their counsel without clear evidence of misconduct.
- Procedural compliance under Order XXXVII CPC is strictly enforced to ensure the efficiency of summary suits.
Court’s Reasoning:
- Service of Summons:
- The court rejected the appellant’s claim of non-service, noting that:
- The summons for judgment were sent to the same address provided by the appellant during their appearance under Order XXXVII CPC.
- The refusal of service by the appellant’s father was sufficient to establish valid service.
- The court rejected the appellant’s claim of non-service, noting that:
- Procedural Compliance:
- The appellant’s failure to file a leave-to-defend application over several court hearings demonstrated a lack of diligence.
- The court observed that the appellant’s inaction persisted even after the trial court directed them to submit the application.
- Allegations of Misconduct:
- The court found no evidence of negligence or misconduct by the appellant’s counsel.
- It noted that the appellant had been actively participating in the trial court proceedings, undermining the credibility of the claim of counsel’s failure.
- Objective of Order XXXVII CPC:
- The court reiterated that Order XXXVII CPC is designed to provide an efficient mechanism for resolving undisputed monetary claims. The appellant’s conduct was inconsistent with the purpose of the provision and warranted dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment and decree dated February 7, 2023, as well as the order dated April 3, 2024, dismissing the appellant’s application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC. The appeal was dismissed as meritless, with the court affirming the procedural rigor required under Order XXXVII CPC.
Implications:
- Strict Enforcement of Procedural Rules:
- The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in summary suits under Order XXXVII CPC.
- Limitations on Allegations of Counsel’s Misconduct:
- Litigants must present credible evidence to support claims of counsel’s negligence or misconduct. Vague allegations cannot be used as a shield against procedural lapses.
- Efficiency in Summary Suits:
- The decision reinforces the objective of Order XXXVII CPC to provide a swift resolution for monetary claims, ensuring that litigants cannot delay proceedings through non-compliance.