PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. AHUJA FURNISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code'), is directed against the order passed by the Addl. District Judge.Delhi on 30 March, 1991 whereby the petitioner/defendant's (termed defendant hereafter) application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of the Code, seeking leave to defend Suit No. 230 of 1988 has been rejected.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff (formed plaintiff hereafter) instituted a suit against the defendant under the summary procedure prescribed by Order 37 of the Code. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant being bound by the terms of agreement, allegedly executed by it with the plaintiff, pursuant to the acceptance of plaintiff's quotation for furnishing of defendant's branch at Bhikaji Cama Place, vide Assistant General Manager (B & C's) letter dated 17 October 1984, had failed to make payment of the 5th and final bill in the sum of Rs. 73,779.12P. It was claimed that the said final bill was scrutinised and sanctioned by defendant's architect in terms of the said agreement and, therefore, it was obliged to make payment of the said bill along with interest thereon for delay in payment. Thus, a decree in the sum of Rs. 86,079.12P. with costs and future interest was prayed for.

(3.) On service of summons the defendant filed an application along with requisite affidavit under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of the Code, seeking leave to defend the suit. It raised various defences in the application. The suit was sought to be contested, infer alia, on the pleas; (i) the alleged contract/agreement relied upon by the plaintiff had not been signed by any authorised officer of the defendant-bank and it was inadmissible in evidence; (ii) the plaintiff had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the tender submitted by it inasmuch as It failed to supply the material/goods in accordance with the specifications given in the tender and further failed to rectify the defects pointed out to it vide letter dated 20 June, 1988 and 13 Dec., 1988; and (iii) the work having been completed behind the schedule the defendant was entitled to claim and recover the liquidated damages from the plaintiff. The application was resisted by the plaintiff.