PRAGATHI BEARINGS Vs. LAXMI DURGA GRANITES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner assails the impugned Order dated 14-3-2000 passed by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in O.S. (SR) No. 230 of 2000.

(2.) The petitioner sought to file the suit under the provisions of Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code (for brevity "the Code") invoking the summary procedure. It is averred, inter alia, in the plaint that the defendant-company has been making regular purchases of bearings etc. from the plaintiff on credit under various invoices from time to time by placing its purchase orders in writing and has been maintaining running account with the plaintiff; and that under the agreed terms and conditions between the parties, the defendant-company has to pay the amounts within 45 days from the date of invoice bills under which the goods are supplied to the defendant-company; and that in the event of its failure to do so, the defendant-Company shall be liable to pay interest at 18% per annum on belated payments. It is further averred that the defendant-Company was due a sum of Rs. 3,25,664.95 ps. towards principal and Rs. 1,21,636.48 ps. towards interest, and in a sum total of Rs. 4,47,301.43 ps.

(3.) Although it has been averred in the plaint that there has been a running account in between the parties, it has been specifically mentioned that the goods have been supplied under various invoices - a bunch consisting of several such invoices have been filed along with the plaint. Certain conditions have been incorporated at the bottom of these invoices. The conditions among others include payment of interest at 18% per annum, jurisdiction at a particular station, acceptance of bills in the event of no objection raised within 15 days from the date of receipt of invoice and the condition regarding the risk. In similar circumstances, the Delhi High Court in M. S. Beacon Electronics v. Sylvania and Laxman Ltd., 1998 AIHC 3118, held that it cannot be said that it is a case simpliciter of supply of goods to the defendant without any written terms and conditions between the parties. The Delhi High Court, relying upon its earlier judgment in M/s. Punjab Pen House v. M/s. Samrat Bicycle Ltd., AIR 1992 Delhi 1, has ultimately upheld the maintainability of the suit under Order 37 of the Code. But, in that case, in para 8 it has been specifically mentioned that in para 11 of the plaint it has been pleaded that the bills referred to in para 10 of the plaint amount to a written contract between the parties. Under such circumstances, the Delhi High Court held in favour of the plaintiff that he can lay the suit invoking the summary procedure under Order 37 of the Code.