(1.) THE civil revision petition has been filed challenging the Order of granting leave on the ground that the Order passed is illegal and it is contrary to the second provisio to O. 37 R. 3 (5) CPC - where the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit shall not be granted. In this case, the defendant has admitted the amount claimed by the plaintiff based on invoices. Therefore, the leave ought not to have been granted by the trial Court. In as much as the leave has been granted, which is contrary to the second proviso, the Order has to be set aside.
(2.) NO representation for the respondent.
(3.) ACCORDING to O. 37 R. 3 (5) CPC, a leave shall not be granted when the amount claimed in the suit is admitted by the respondent/defendant. But, in this case, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that in the communication dated 15. 5. 1999, the respondent has admitted that he has to pay a sum of Rs. 6,53,487. 88. This was confirmed by the revision petitioner herein by letter dated 22. 5. 1999. To the question that this amount varies from the balance which was sought to be confirmed by the respondent, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner replied that this amount of Rs. 10,10,348. 00 is the principal (Rs. 6,53,487. 88) plus interest payable till that date. Therefore, there is an admission and hence, the leave granted is illegal.