NAVEEN SANGARI Vs. ESCORTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit under Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of Rs.53,06,208/- together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization, pleading:

(2.) The defendant has sought leave to defend on the grounds:

(3.) The senior counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the only ground on which the defendant has sought leave is of the defendant's counter claim against the plaintiff and the defendant else in the leave to defend application has not controverted the claim in the suit. Reliance is placed on Bramec Suri P. Ltd. Vs. Suri Smith Chem , Punjab & Sind Bank Vs. S.K. Tulshan, 1992 74 CompCas 788 and Deutsche Ranco GMBH Vs. Mohan Murti, 1993 52 DLT 288 to contend that merely because the defendant may have a counter claim against the plaintiff is no ground to grant leave to defend. Reliance is further placed on Rajinder Kumar Khanna Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., 1990 AIR(Del) 278 laying down that a suit under Order 37 is maintainable even where the sum claimed can be arrived at by arithmetical calculation.