P RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. N HEMALATHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in I.A.No. 115 of 1999 in O.S.No. 216 of 1999 dated 16-8-1999 under which the petitioner- defendant's application for leave to defend the suit purported to have been filed under Order 37 Rule 5 C.P.C. has been dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 28,00,000/- and odd with interest. After summons for judgment in this suit were served on the defendant under sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of Order 37 C.P.C., the defendant applied for leave to defend the suit disclosing various defences on which the defendant would rely. The learned Judge held that in respect of claim of interest the defence indicated by the defendant constitute a triable issue and in respect of certain amounts covered by items 5,6,7 and 8 under which certain amounts are said to have been advanced to the defendant, as there are no cheque numbers, that constitutes another triable issue. These items are said to have covered an amount of Rs. 1,72,000/- The learned Judge further held that inasmuch as notice was issued on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant for repaying the amounts in question and inasmuch as no reply has been sent by the defendant, the amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- which appears to be principal amount after deducting Rs. 1,72,000/- should be deposited as a condition for granting leave to defend. Accordingly, the learned Judge granted leave to defend the suit only on deposit of Rs. 16,00,000/- by the defendant.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner in this revision petition points out that the suit itself is not maintainable under summary procedure under Order 37 C.P.C. inasmuch as the alleged transaction does not fall under any of the categories of transactions enumerated in sub-rule (2) Rule 1 under Order 37 CPC, which is extracted below.