MURARI LAL RATHORE Vs. JAGDAMBA TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 13-2-2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran in Civil Original Suit No. 19/2002 whereby the application of defendants-non-petitioners under Order 37, Rule 3(5), C.P.C. has been allowed and they have been granted leave to defend in the suit.

(2.) The relevant facts, in brief, are that plaintiff-petitioner instituted a civil suit before the learned Court below under Order 37, C.P.C. with the averments that he sold Coriander seed worth Rs. 2.44.406/- to non-petitioners-defendants on 4-12-2001 and supplied the same in 250 bags through a truck and also issued a bill No. 1423 dated 4-12-2001 in respect thereof and the same was received by non-petitioners on 5-12-2001. As per the contract of sale executed between the parties on 1-12-2001, the payment was to be made within 20-25 days of receipt of goods. Petitioner requested non-petitioners vide telegram dated 9-1-2002 to make payment of the amount of goods supplied vide bill No. 1423 dated 4-12-2001, in reply to which they denied their liability to make the payment on the ground that the goods supplied were sub-standard. Thereafter, petitioner sent a legal notice to them through his counsel calling upon them to make payment, but non-petitioners neither made the payment of the goods nor returned the goods and instead sent a false, vague and frivolous reply to the notice stating that the goods supplied were sub-standard for which they could not make any payment and further informed him to take back the goods within a period of 7 days otherwise, the same would be sold through auction. Non-petitioners after service of summons on them filed an application under Order 37, Rule 3(5), C.P.C. seeking leave to defend the case unconditionally which was contested by and on behalf of petitioner-plain tiff by filing a reply thereto. After hearing the parties, learned Court below vide its impugned order dated 13-2-2003 allowed the application and granted leave to defend unconditionally which is under challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff and have also perused the impugned order.