Legal Blog: "Leave to Defend" - Principles for Granting : The Law

Legal Blog on the Social Networks

Loading

Sunday, January 16, 2011

"Leave to Defend" - Principles for Granting : The Law

Justice Beg
The Supreme Court in its landmark judgment, in M/s Mechalec Engineers and Manufactures v. M/s Basic Equipment Corporation (1977) 1 SCR 1060, has examined the principles which are to be considered while granting leave to defend in Summary Suits under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court has observed as under;

In Smt. Kiranmoyee Dassi & Anr. v. Dr. J. Chatterjee(1), Das. J., after a comprehensive review of authorities on the subject, stated the principles applicable to cases covered by order 17 C.P.C. in the form of the following propositions (at p. 253):

"(a) If the Defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and the Defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

(b) If the Defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence although not a positively good defence the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment and the Defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. 

(c) If the Defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, that is to say, although the affidavit does not positively and immediately make it clear that he has a defence, yet, shews such a state of facts as leads to the inference that at the trial of the action he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff's claim the Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment and the Defendant is entitled to leave to defend but in such a case the Court may in its discretion impose conditions as to the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security.

(d) If the Defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practi- cally moonshine then ordinarily the Plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment and the Defendant is not entitled to leave to defend. 

(e) If the Defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then although ordinarily the Plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment, the Court may protect the Plaintiff by only allowing the defence to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into Court or otherwise secured and give leave to the Defendant on such condition, and thereby show mercy to the Defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence".

2 comments:

  1. It's order 37, not order 17.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous is correct

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
There was an error in this gadget