ION EXCHANGE INDIA LTD. Vs. SATPAL SINGH GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant company is the appellant before this Court. It has challenged the order dated December 22, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby on an appeal filed by it, the judgment and decree of the trial Court have been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court but the Appellate Court has directed that the defendant company will not be entitled to file any written statement and will not be entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses but such cross examination will be limited to pointing out the weakness of the plaintiff's case but such a cross examination would not travel beyond to disclose any defence.

(2.) THE facts which emerge from the record show that the plaintiff firm M/s Satpal Singh Grover, a sole proprietorship of Satpal Singh Grover, filed a suit for mandatory injunction on January 4, 2002 for directing the defendant M/s ION Exchange India Limited (the present appellant company) to pay outstanding amount of Rs. 26,59,221/- alongwith interest pendente-lite and future interest, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract alleged to have been entered into between the parties. Although an alternative prayer for a decree for recovery of the aforesaid amount was made but the plaintiff firm did not choose to pay court fee qua the suit for recovery. As a matter of fact, the court fee was paid only for the relief of mandatory injunction. Various facts on the basis of which the claim was made by the plaintiff firm need not be noticed, at this stage at all, inasmuch as, upon notice of the suit having been issued, the defendant put in appearance before the trial Court on March 27, 2002. On the aforesaid date, the defendant company maintained that the copy of the plaint had not been received by it. It also sought time to file written statement. Consequently, the trial Court adjourned the proceedings in the suit for filing the written statement to various dates. It appears from the record that ultimately the matter remained pending for filing the written statement upto May 30, 2003. No written statement, however, was filed by the defendant company.

(3.) THE aforesaid application filed by the defendant company was contested by the plaintiff firm. Vide an order dated July 28, 2003, the trial Court held that the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff firm was not maintainable and on account of the relief for recovery of the aforesaid amount, the trial Court directed the plaintiff firm to pay the requisite court fee within one month.