VICEROY HOTELS LTD Vs. RADHA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the trial Court dated 17.9.2011 dismissing the application for leave to defend filed by the appellant/defendant under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of RS. 13,11,836/- alongwith interest and costs.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff did the work of supply and installation of audio visual equipments at the hotel premises of the appellant/defendant. Disputes and differences arose with respect to the contract resulting in an earlier suit for recovery being filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant. During the pendency of this earlier suit, parties entered into a written compromise on 9.12.2006. As per this written compromise, the appellant/defendant agreed to pay a total sum of RS. 9,11,328 in two parts of RS. 3 lacs and RS. 6,11,328/- to the respondent/plaintiff in the manner and period as stated in the compromise. THE compromise deed however contained clause 5.2 which provided that if the validity of the compromise is not mutually extended, and if terms are not performed, the parties will revert to the position which existed prior to the signing of the compromise. Since the appellant/defendant paid only a sum of RS. 3 lacs out of the amount of RS. 9,11,328/-, the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for recovery under Order 37 CPC.

(3.) ANOTHER aspect dealt with by the trial Court, and as urged by the appellant/defendant in the leave to defend application, was that the appellant/defendant was caused losses on account of breach of contract by the respondent/plaintiff, however, once again the defence in this regard was found to be wholly vague inasmuch as there were no details of what were the losses which were caused and how were the said losses arrived at.