LEATHER PERFECTION Vs. EXPORT AND ALLIED SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. With the consent of parties the matter has been heard and is being disposed of finally.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of Rs.29,500.00 under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the allegations that the defendant had issued a cheque for Rs. 19,735.00in favour of the plaintiff, this cheque on presentation was not encashed by the Bank and the defendant was, therefore, liable to pay the cheque amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The defendant appears to have been served by publication and since no one appeared on behalf of the defendant, the Court deeming the allegations made in the plaint to-be correct, passed decree against the defendant. On receipt of an order of attachment from the Court in execution of the decree the defendant is alleged to have become aware of the decree passed in the suit and an application under Order 37 Rule 4, Civil Procedure code was, therefore, filed by the defendants/petitioner contending inter alia that the defendant had not beenserved with the summons in the suit and that the cheque in question was issued without consideration. It is submitted in the application that no commercial dealings were entered into between the parties and the plaintiff's services were engaged by the defendant as the cargo clearing agent. It is submitted that on two occasions the plaintiff raised two bills of Rs. 29,500.00 and Rs. 19,735.00 respectively: It is submitted that the payment of the second bill of Rs. 19,735 .00 was withheld because the plaintiff had failed to discharge its obligations by not furnishing the export promotion copy to the defendant thereby depriving the defendant to cash compensatory support of Rs. 19,375.00. It is submitted that the defendants had repeatedly called upon the plaintiff to produce the export promotion copy before payment of the aforesaid bill could be made.- It is, therefore, submitted that since the export promotion copy was not supplied by the plaintiff, it was not entitled to any amount from the defendant. It is also submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by time and consequently the defendant was entitled to leave to defend the suit.

(3.) By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the defendant/petitioner. It was observed in the order that during the course of arguments Counsel for the plaintiff had offered to place on record the export promotion copy and the defendant would, therefore, be entitled to receive the same from the Court on making payment of the decretal amount. Aggrieved by this order present revision petition was filed by the petitioner.