RAMBADAN CHOWBEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisional applications, both at the instance of the defendant of Com. Suit No. 510 of 1979 of the City Civil Court, are directed against two Orders dated Jan. 11, 1980 and September 23, 1981.

(2.) The plaintiff opposite party instituted the above suit for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered together with interest, under Order 37, C.P.C. The learned Registrar of that court being not certain whether such a suit could be instituted under Order 37, placed the matter before the Bench for orders. The court by its order dated January 11, 1980, held that the unpaid price of goods sold is in the nature of a 'debt' and the liability arises out of an enactment, viz, the Sale of Goods Act, Hence, in view of the amended provisions of Order 37 it was held that the suit came within the preview of that order.

(3.) Thereafter the summary procedure for suits under Order 37 was adopted and the summons having been served, the 'defendant petitioner entered appearance and filed an application under Sub -rule (5), Rule 3, Order 37 praying for leave to defend the suit unconditionally, The defendant claimed in the said application that the plaintiff's claim was fictitious and that the defendant had a substantial defence to put forth. It was also claimed that such a suit could not come within the meaning of Order 37 of the Code. This application for leave to defend was filed beyond time and the defendant also explained the reason for the delay and prayed for condonation of the same.