SCB CHINA LTD Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant to assail the order dated 21.1.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge had granted leave to the respondent to contest the recovery suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order XXXVII, CPC.

(2.) The preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent is with regard to the very maintainability of the present appeal. The stand of the counsel for the respondent is that the impugned order is not in the nature of a judgment through which there has been a final determination of the rights of the parties and therefore, the same is not appealable either under CPC or under the Letters Patent. In support of his arguments, counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and Ors., 1981 AIR(SC) 1786

(3.) Mr. Sumit Bansal, counsel for the appellant, on the other hand submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does affect the rights of the appellant as the learned Single Judge has granted unconditional leave to the defendants/respondents even in the absence of any triable issue raised by them in their application. Counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 had issued a standby Letter of Credit and not a Letter of Credit as it was sought to be projected, therefore, this misrepresentation on the part of respondent No.1 itself disentitles respondent No.1 from seeking any leave to defend to contest the suit.