CIVCON ENGINEERS Vs. PURAN SINGH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interpretation imparted to Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Hon'ble Supreme Court a quarter century ago, in M/s. Mechalec Engineers & Manufacturers v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, AIR 1977 SC 577, still holds the field, and in conformity with this pronouncement, the following proposition have to be kept in perspective while deciding whether leave to defend the suit should be declined or granted:

(2.) In Mrs. Raj Duggal v. Ramesh Kumar Bansal, AIR 1990 SC 2218, the Court had opined as follows :

(3.) In its earlier judgment in Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 321, the Court had perspicuously observed that "the learned Judge has failed to see that the stage of proof can only come after the defendant has been allowed to enter an appearance and defend the suit, and that the nature of the defence has to be determined at the time when the affidavit is put in. At that stage all that the Court has to determine is whether "if the facts alleged by the defendant are duly proved" they will afford a good, or even a plausible, answer to the plaintiff's claim. Once the Court is satisfied about mat, leave cannot be withheld and no question about imposing conditions can arise; and once leave is granted, the normal procedure of a suit, so far as evidence and proof go, obtains."