S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.@mdashThe applicant, original plaintiff [herein after referred to as the plaintiff] has approached this Court u/s 115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 28/12/2004 passed by learned 4th Jt. Civil Judge, (S.D.), Vadodara, below exhibit-64 in
Civil Misc. Application No. 179 of 2003 preferred by the original defendant No. 7, respondent herein above, under provision of Order XXXVII
Rule 4 of CPC for setting aside the decree dated 15.09.2003 passed by 9th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara, in Special Summary Suit No. 202
of 2001 preferred by the plaintiff against Cherotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank, a co-operative bank, and others, including the present respondent i.e.
HDFC Bank for recovery of Rs. 7,08,10,040 (Rs. Seven crore eight lacs ten thousand and forty only)
2. Facts in brief giving rise to this Revision Application deserve to be set out as under.
The original plaintiff runs his business in the name of Apex Chemicals and is also a freelance Financial Consultant. Defendants No. 1 is Charotar
Nagrik Sahakari Bank a co-operative bank, Defendant No. 2 to 4 were its Directors, and Defendants No. 5 & 6 were its Branch Managers,
while Defendant No. 7, respondent herein above, is HDFC Bank, a banking company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956.
3. It was the case of the plaintiff that the Cherotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd., which has now been under liquidation, at the relevant time consulted
the plaintiff and hired his services and expertise for procuring deposits worth about Rs. 200 Crores. The defendant No. 1 to 6 agreed to pay to the
plaintiff, 6% of Rs. 200 Crores deposits that might be procured with his help and expertise.
4. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the defendant No. 1""s Directors and Chief Managers were taken to various offices at Delhi,
particularly in the Ministry of Agriculture, who were ready to deposit Rs. 200 Crores in four installments and also took them to Mineral
Corporation of India, New Delhi which finalized the scheme of depositing Rs. 200 crores on 5/11/1999 and also finalized scheme of depositing
with Coal India Ltd, Calcutta.
5. The defendant No. 1 to 6 were to arrange for providing repayment guarantee from any Nationalized Bank, as it was most essential condition for
loan. Defendant No. 1 to 6 were to obtain repayment guarantee from HDFC Bank, which they could not obtain and they informed plaintiff that
instead thereof they would then make arrangement with Central Bank of India for such repayment guarantee. The plaintiff averred in paragraph 6
of the plaint that thus the entire deposit of Rs. 200 crores was available to the Defendant No. 1 Bank and acceptance of deposit was however
through Central Bank of India and stated that defendant No. 1 to 6 procured deposits worth Rs. 200 Crores.
6. The defendant No. 1 to 6 in the meantime realized that 6% of 200 crore rupees would be a huge amount for such expertise and help rendered,
and therefore, after much persuasion and negotiations ultimately with great reluctance plaintiff agreed to settle the matter for Rs. 7 crores for his
professional service charges. The plaintiff prepared bill for Rs. 7 Crores along with his letter dated 20.11.1999 requesting the Defendants No. 1 to
6 to pay Rs. 6.65 Crores after deducting 5 % TDS, accordingly the Defendants No. 1to 6 issued total 7 Demand Drafts/ Bankers Cheques dated
6.12.1999 for the amounts mentioned therein-totaling Rs. 6,50,00000. The plaintiff has given the details in paragraph 8 of the plaint.
7. As per the say of the plaintiff in para-8 of the plaint the defendant No. 1 to 6 issued seven demand drafts/Banker""s cheques for the amounts
mentioned therein. These Banker""s cheques dated 6/12/1999 were drawn upon HDFC Bank. The plaintiff presented 6 demand drafts/bankers
cheques through his banker Union of India to HDFC bank for encashment on two occasions, which returned the same under ''Stop Payment''
instructions from its Drawer i.e. Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff through his advocate issued Notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act
(herein after referred to as N.I. Act for brevity) on 7.03.2000 to Defendant No. 1 to 6 for making payment against those cheques within statutory
period or face criminal complainant. It may be noted here that the plaintiff did not issue any notice u/s 138 of N.I. Act to the Defendant No. 7 i.e.
HDFC Bank. The defendant No. 1 to 6 replied through their advocate on 17.03.2000 to the plaintiff that those cheques were given to the plaintiff
without any consideration, only for the purpose of showing them to other prospective depositors for inspiring confidence and the plaintiff was not
to deposit it at all. The plaintiff could not procure deposits and hence nothing was payable to the plaintiff. The Charotar Nagrik Sahakari Bank
would file criminal case for cheating against the plaintiff. In fact the Charotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank i.e. defendant No. 1 did file criminal complainant
being FIR I "" 20 of 2000 against the plaintiff for offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code. As the concerned Sessions Court did not
grant anticipatory bail to the plaintiff he had to move Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2526 of 2000 in the High Court and obtained
anticipatory bail on 22.05.2000.
8. The plaintiff had to issue one more notice u/s 138 of N.I. Act to the defendant No. 1 to 6 as another lot of cheques issued by them had also
been returned due to their ''Stop Payment'' instructions. Ultimately plaintiff instituted Criminal cases being Criminal Case No. 1172 of 2000,
Criminal Case No. 1173 of 2000 on 7.04.2000 and Criminal Cases being Criminal cases No. 2653/00, 2654/00, 2655/00 and 2656/00 on
18.07.2000 against the defendant No. 1 to 6 in respect of all these Banker Cheques/Demand Draft u/s 138 of the N.I. Act.
9. The plaintiff did not issue any notice nor did he file any Criminal Case against HDFC i.e. defendant No. 7 u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. As it appears
from the record the plaintiff for the first time issued notice to HDFC defendant No. 7 and present respondent only on 4.09.2000 for payment on
the ground that the bankers"" cheques issued by Defendant No. 1 to 6 were in fact Demand Draft and as such HDFC could not have acted upon
the illegal instructions of stopping payment issued by the defendants No. 1 to 6. On this premise the plaintiff instituted Special Summery Suit under
Order 37 of CPC in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (SD) Vadodara against defendant 1 to 6 and present respondent HDFC Bank being
defendant No. 7 for recovering an amount of Rs. 7,08,10,040/- The suit was instituted on 13/3/2001. In the Special Summery Suit, being Spl. Suit
No. 202 of 2001 under Order 37 of the CPC against defendant No. 1 to 6 as well as defendant No. 7, the Plaintiff has alleged that there existed
an agreement between Charotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank Defendant No. 1 and HDFC Defendant No. 7 for issuing Demand Drafts. Therefore
HDFC Defendant No. 7 could not have returned the Demand Drafts issued by the Charotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank Defendant No. 1 upon HDFC
on the ground of ''stop payment'' instructions received from the drawer. The plaintiff on this basis contended that the Banker""s cheques were in fact
demand draft only and the HDFC Bank ought to have honoured the same.
10. In the Suit, the plaintiff contended that on account of existing agency agreement between Cherotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank and HDFC Bank that
the Cherotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank would issue demand draft drawn upon HDFC Bank, which would be honored by the HDFC Bank. Therefore
HDFC bank even on the instructions of the drawer could not have stopped the payment.
11. The summonses for appearance under Order 37, Rule 2 of CPC were served upon the defendants. The defendant No. 7 i.e. HDFC also
received the same on 22.03.2001. The Defendants No. 1 to 6 appeared and filed appearance however the Defendant No. 7 could not appear
within 10 days from the receipt of summons. The summons for Judgment were also issued and duly served upon the defendants. The Defendant
No. 7 without filing appearance or seeking leave to defend straight way filed its Written Statement at exhibit 17 for the first time on 25.04.2001 in
the suit proceedings.
12. The advocate for the defendant No. 7 also filed application exhibit 37 under Order 7 Rule 11 for seeking dismissal of suit qua the HDFC Bank
as there was no privity of contract and the cheques issued by the Defendant No. 1 from its current account maintained with HDFC Bank cannot
be termed to be Demand draft issued by HDFC Bank so as to compelled it to honor. This application was never decided and it is still pending.
13. The plaintiff filed an application at exhibit 52 on 19.09.2002 for making decree against the defendant No. 7 i.e. HDFC Bank respondent
herein above in terms of provisions of Order 37 Rule 2 as they did not bother to appear after summons for appearance was served upon them nor
did they file any application for leave to defend and hence the plaintiff was entitled to have decree against the defendant No. 7 straight way. A
copy of this application was served upon the defendant No. 7""s advocate. The Trial Court passed ordered it to be put up for reply and hearing. It
was the say of the defendant No. 7 that their advocate never supplied this copy to them nor did he inform them about having received any such
application.
14. The Advocate for the defendant No. 7, i.e. present respondent herein above filed purshis on 28.02.2003 at exhibit No. 57 informing the Court
that he had returned all the papers to the HDFC Bank by courier and he did not represent them any more. The Trial Court made an endorsement
''recorded'' thereon.
15. The plaintiff moved Spl.C.A 12515 of 2003 as the application at exhibit 52 dated 19.02.2002 was not getting heard. This Court (Coram: A.R.
Dave J as he then was) on 27.09.2003 passed the following order : ''Rule returnable on 16.09.2003 Learned advocate Shri Dagli has also
submitted that he would make an effort to see that the application below exhibit 52 is decided by trial court at an early date and he would also like
to place on record of the trial court the copies of the judgments which have been annexed to this petition. It was hoped that the trial court shall
make all the possible efforts to decide the application below exhibit 52 as soon as possible and preferably before the next date of hearing. Direct
service to respondent No. 7 is permitted''
16. The defendant No. 7 has stated that though order dated 27.08.2003 was required to be served directly as soon as possible the plaintiff served
it upon the HDFC Bank only on 10.09.2003 i.e. only five days early than the returnable date.
17. The Trial Court on 15.09.2003 ex parte decided the Exhibit 52 application against the defendant No. 7. The Trial Court observed that no one
was present for the Defendant No. 7. The order''s first page indicates the advocate''s name who use to appear for HDFC bank and who had filed
purshis at Exhibit 57 on 28.02.2003 informing the Court that he had returned all the papers to HDFC Bank.
18. The Trial Court after deciding Exhibit 52 application against the defendants No. 7 straight way proceeded with the hearing of Spl. Suit on
accepting the contentions of the plaintiff that as the defendant No. 7 has not filed its appearance within 10 days from the service of summons to
appear which was served upon it way back on 21.03.2002 their subsequent filing of Written Statement without seeking and obtaining leave to
defend would be of no avail and the plaintiff was entitled for decree straight way against the defendant No. 7. The Trial Court passed decree for
the entire suit amount with interest of 6 % from filing of suit till its realization against the defendant No. 7 only and adjourned the suit for further
proceedings against the rest of the defendants vide its judgment and order dated 15.09.2003.
19. As its revealed from the record the defendant No. 7 came to know about the decree on 17.09.2003 and applied for Certified Copy on
18.09.2003. The Defendant No. 7 initially filed Restoration Application being Civil Miscellaneous Application 179 of 2003 under Order 9 Rule 13
of CPC Application filed for recalling the ex parte decree dated 15.09.2003 that was later on amended and converted into one filed under Order
37 Rule 4 of CPC. The defendant No. 7 also filed First Appeal No. 356 of 2003 on 19.12.2003 against the decree-dated 15.09.2003, the
defendant No. 7 also filed Spl.C.A. 1489 of 2003, which came to be disposed of, vide order-dated 20.01.2004, as the appeal and restoration
application were pending.
20. It may be noted that the as the decree of entire amount with interest was made against the defendant No. 7 the plaintiff filed purshish on
7.10.2003 for deleting other parties namely defendants No. 1 to 6. which came to be allowed by the Trial Court on 7.10.2003
21. The Trial Court passed order and judgment below exhibit 64 on 28.12.2004 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 179 of 2003 setting aside
the decree dated 15.09.2003, which is impugned in the present proceedings.
22. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the order impugned is patently erroneous, untenable and passed contrary to the settled
position of law in respect of proceedings under Order 37. The Trial Court ought not to have set aside the decree dated 15.09.2003 against
defendant No. 7 as it was passed in consonance with the principles and provisions of Order 37 Rule 2(3) of CPC.
23. The advocate for the plaintiff submitted that it has come on record that the defendant No. 7 was served with the summons for appearance right
on 22.03.2001 and therefore on its failure to file appearance within stipulated time the plaintiff was entitled to decree against the said defendant
under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 2(3) of CPC. The subsequent events would be of absolutely no avail to the defendant No. 7.
24. The advocate for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant No. 7 did not file appearance within 10 days from the date of service of summons
for appearance nor did it apply for leave to defend after it was served with summons for judgment. The Written Statement filed without obtaining
leave to defend would be of no avail and the plaintiff was entitled for decree against the defendant No. 7 in accordance with the provisions of
Order 37, Rule 2(3) of the CPC.
25. The advocate for the plaintiff, relying upon the averments by the defendant No. 7 in paragraph 3 of their application at exhibit 37 dated
22.02.2002/affirmed on 11.04.2002 under Order 7 Rule 11 for dismissing the suit qua the defendant No. 7, submitted that the same amounted to
clear admission on the part of defendant No. 7 about their existing an agreement between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 7 for issuing
demand drafts and defendant No. 7 being banker of the defendant No. 1. and therefore the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2003 did not call
for any interference.
26. The advocate for the plaintiff submitted that under Order 37 Rule 4 the applicant has to make out Special Circumstances as this provisions are
different than the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 wherein setting aside of only ex parte decree is provided. The misplacing of summons for
appearance received on 22.03.2001 in the office of Defendant No. 7 and their failure in even seeking condoning of delay in filing appearance and
seeking leave to defend and straight way filing written statement exhibit 17 surely would not amount to special circumstances entitling them to have
the decree set aside under provisions of Order 37 Rule 4 of CPC.
27. The advocate for the plaintiff further submitted that requirement of showing reasonable defense on the part of the defendant seeking relief under
Order 37 Rule 4 of CPC is subsequent to his establishing, his case on the first requirement of Special Circumstances. Thus defendant under Order
37 Rule 4 has not only to establish good case on merit but prior thereto he has to establish special circumstance that prevented him from complying
with the provisions of Order 37 Rule 2 in filing appearance in 10 days from the receipt of the summons for appearance. Thus only and only after
establishing case under the twine requirement the decree is liable to be set aside. In the instant case the defendant No. 7 has not made out any case
so far as the first requirement of establishing special circumstance preventing them to file their appearance under Order 37 Rule 2 within stipulated
time is concerned and hence the impugned judgment and order dated below exhibit 64 in Civil Misc. Application No. 179 of 2003 deserved to be
quashed and set aside.
28. The advocate for the plaintiff relied upon the decision reported in D. Shanalal and Vs. Bank of Maharashtra, in support of his submission that
under Order 37 Rule 4 the party cannot claim better rights than the rights available to appellant. He also relied upon the decision of Ramkarandas
Radhavallabh Vs. Bhagwandas Dwarkadas, on the point that while considering the plea for setting aside decree under Order 37 Rule 4 the Court
cannot have recourse to the inherent powers u/s 151 of CPC. Rajni Kumar Vs. Suresh Kumar Malhotra and Another, on the point that special
circumstances required to be established for setting aside decree under Order 37, Rule 4 are not defined any where in the Code. The defendant
not only will have to show existence of special circumstances which prevented him from filing appearance and or obtaining leave to defend but he
has also to demonstrate that he has reasonably arguable case in trial. In case of Tirlok Singh Thakur Vs. Madan Singh Nirala, wherein the
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when the ex parte decree is passed under Order 37 Rule 2 than the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 for
setting it aside would have no applications, In case of Smt. Maha Devi Vs. Ravi Kumar and Others, the Court held that when in summary suit the
defendant instead of filing an application on affidavit for seeking leave to defend filed written statement along with an application for condonation of
delay the said written statement cannot be taken on record and any plea of such irregularity happening bonafide not acceptable. In case of Jitendra
Gupta Vs. Ramchandra Sardare, on the point that under Order 37 Rule 3 and 6 the defendant has to apply for leave to defend within 10 days
from the receipt of summon however the learned judge has power to condon the delay on sufficient cause being made out but in case if no delay
condonation application is made there could be no question of condoning delay and the Court have to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff. In case
of Salil Dutta Vs. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd., the apex court held that advocate acts as an agent of the party and his acts ordinarily cannot be
disowned. While distinguishing observations and facts in case of Rafiq and Another Vs. Munshilal and Another, the Court observed that in given
case the ex parte decree could be set aside on account of negligence or misdemeanor of the advocate of the party but in all the case decree need
not be set aside only on account of negligence of advocate. The Courts have to look to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In case of
State Bank of India and Another Vs. Jyoti Ranjan Mazumdar and Another, wherein the Calcutta High Court held that Draft by a branch of Bank
on its Head Office is a bill of exchange. Ordinarily different branches of a bank and their head offices constitutes one legal entity a branch being
only an agency of the Head Office but for certain purpose the branch are treated as distinct entities Therefore in a demand draft by a branch of
bank on its Head Office drawer and drawee are two different entities drawer being branch and drawee being Head Office and it is bill of
exchange. And in case of any uncertainty as to character of instrument due to drawer and drawee being one legal entity holder can insist on treating
it as bill of exchange u/s 17, In case of Punjab & Sindh Bank v. Vinkar Sahkari Bank Ltd. and Ors. 2001(6) S C 875 in support of the submission
that ''Pay Order:'' is like a demand draft and thus a cheque within the meaning of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, In case of
Raghavendra Sinh Bhadoria v. State Bank of Indore and Ors. reported in AIR 1992 MP 148 the division bench of MP High Court relying upon
the decision of Bombay HC in case of Tukaram Bapuji Nikam Vs. The Belgaum Bank Limited, held that once the draft has been delivered to the
payee or his agent the purchaser is not entitled to ask the issuing bank to stop payment of the draft to payee on other grounds such as matters
relating to consideration, and the issuing bank can thereafter pay back the amount of the draft to the purchaser of the draft only with the consent of
the payee., In case of Polavarapu Venkataswarlu Vs. Polavarapu Subbayya, (2) relying upon the observation of para 6 of the Madras High Court
it was contended that a demand draft is a bill of exchange drawn by a bank to another bank or by itself on its own branch and is a negotiable
instrument not offending the Reserve Bank of India Act It is very nearly allied to a cheque the difference between it and cheque consisting largely in
two facts Firstly it can be drawn only by a bank on another bank and not by private individual as in case of cheque Secondly it cannot so easily be
countermanded as a cheque either by the person purchasing it, or by the bank to which it is presented., In case of Smt. Kamlesh Kohli and Anr. v.
Escotrac Finance & Investment Ltd. and Ors. Reported in 1999 (8) SC 414 the apex court has held that there is no bar under CPC to pass
decree against some of defendant, In case of State of Gujarat Vs. Sayed Mohd. Baquir El Edross, the apex court held that strong case on merits
not a ground for condonation of delay in absence of any cause for delay, In case of A.C. Ananthaswamy and Others Vs. Boraiah (dead) by LRs.,
the apex court referring the case of Choksi Bhidarbhai Mathurbhai Vs. Purshottamdas Bhogilal Shah, Court held that in the case on hand there
was no evidence of fraud The case was a matter of non service of summons and there was only a bare allegation of fraud and when the only fraud
alleged is a bare non-serve of summons then suit to set aside he decree on such ground was not maintainable. These were the judgments relied
upon during the course of arguments.
29. The advocate for the plaintiff submitted that the instruments in question were in fact demand draft issued by defendant No. 1 to 6 upon the
defendant No. 7 HDFC Bank under their agency agreement for issuing demand drafts. As the instruments were demand drafts it was not open to
HDFC to dis-honor it on the ground of stop payment instructions of drawer.
30. The advocate for the plaintiff also submitted that the say of the defendant with regard to the MICR transaction code No. 12 prescribed by
R.B.I. for cheques and different code for Demand Draft is also not borne out by copies of the instruments on record which bears MICR
transaction code 29. Thus from any angle the decree was not liable be set aside.
31. The advocate for the plaintiff has also submitted that the Trial Court while hearing plea for setting aside decree under Order 37 Rule 4 was not
to hear it as if he was sitting in appeal over the judgment and decree sought to be set aside. The Court under Order 37 Rule 4 cannot re-
appreciate the evidence on record like an appellate court.
32. The advocate for the plaintiff submitted that the judgment and order dated 28.12.2004 impugned in the present revision application is
erroneous, and contrary to the established principles of law and hence deserved to be quashed and set aside.
33. The above was the gist of oral submissions made judgments cited at the bar and the following is the gist of written submission and list of
authority supplied along with written submissions.
34. The applicant and the present respondent HDFC for the first time by way of amendment on 9.04.2004 introduced prayers to be made under
Order 37 Rule 4. The amendment application being Exhibit 41 was made in Civil Misc. Application No. 179 of 2003. This application was barred
by limitation. The application for setting aside such decree was required to be made within 30 days from the date of the decree as per Articles 118
and 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The reliance is placed upon the case of Vishwambhar and Others Vs. Laxminarayana (Dead) through L.Rs.
and Another, wherein the Court held that such amendment could be taken to have been filed only on the date of amendment of application and not
earlier than that.
35. The Gujarat High Court in case of Santoshi T.V. Centre v. Arvind Mills Ltd. 1997 (3) GCD 427 (Guj) observed that when ever a party
approaches the Courts under Rule 4 of Order 37 of CPC he has to not only make out sufficient cause but has also to make out special
circumstances that prevented him from entering hids defense to defend the suit. The finding recorded by the Trial Court on the page No. 19 that
summon was served upon the defendant bank and the bank''s ground that as it was misplaced it could file its appearance is not accepted as god
ground by the Trial Court Yet he has allowed the application and set aside the decree.
36. The learned Judge of the co-ordinate rank did not have jurisdiction under Order 37 Rule 4 to upset the judgment and finding recorded by the
earlier civil judge i.e. his predecessor on erroneous assumption about the instruments being cheques and not demand drafts. The apex Court has in
case of Vrajlal Ratilal v. Shah Baluben Talakshi reported in 2001(5) SC 479 held that the single judge of the Court is bound to follow the
judgment of his co-ordinate court.
37. It was further submission in the written submission that ex parte decree operates as res judicata between the same parties as observed in Shri
Ramo Barman and Others Vs. Smt. Dagripriya Kachari and Others,
38. A reliance is placed upon the provisions of Order 37 Sub-rule 3 of Rule 2 and it is submitted that the impugned order deserved to be quashed
and set aside as the court has observed regarding earlier proceedings that the court failed in performing its duty. Reliance is once again placed
upon the decision of the apex court in case of reported in Ramkarandas Radhavallabh Vs. Bhagwandas Dwarkadas,
39. The impugned order is also assailed on the ground that the Court while hearing and deciding prayers for setting aside decree under Order 37
Rule 4 is not to hear parties on the merits of the matters. The defendant is not entitled to take up any contentions once he failed in filing appearance
and obtaining leave to defend.
40. The plea of so called fraud was also not to weigh with the Trial Court while considering the prayers for setting aside decree under Order 37
Rule 4 of C.P.C. In absence of any specific instances of fraud mere raising plea of fraud it itself would not be sufficient.
41. The plaintiff has also referred to in written submission at considerable length the various proceedings take out against Bank for making false
statements. It may be noted here that the record shows that such proceedings had been taken out in fact by both the sides against each other and
matters were brought up to this Court also.
42. It was contended in the written submission that MICR technology or its Guidelines are not having any statutory force. The Judgment of the
apex Court (1994) 5 SCC312 as per the say of the plaintiff''s advocate was not applicable to the facts of the case.
43. The provisions of N.I. Act have been relied upon by the plaintiff in written submissions for pointing it out that the instruments in questions were
capable of being treated negotiable instruments.
44. The plaintiff has also in written submission contended that the Trial Court ought not to have placed importance to Exhibit 52 application and it
being not served upon the defendant No. 7.as the plaintiff was not obliged to serve copy of the said application upon the HDFC Bank as it failed in
making appearance within 10 days from the receipt of summons entitling the plaintiff to have the decree passed against such defaulting defendant.
45. The following authorities cited by the plaintiff''s advocate in addition to those discussed herein above and touching the points could be
summarized as under:
1. V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and Another, : See para 20 : Limitation Act 1963 Section 3 Waiver of
limitation- Even if the defendant intentionally does not raise the plea of limitation, if the suit is ex facie barred by law of limitation court has no
choice but to dismiss the same. See also para 24 : waiver is a question of fact and must be properly pleaded and proved. No plea of waiver could
be allowed to be raised unless it is pleaded. (the judgment is also on the point of Order 12 Rule 6 order or judgment on admission.
2. 1994 (1) GLH 560 : The Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Central Bank of India : See para 9 & 10 : Merits of the matter may be one
of the factors to be borne in mind but the alleged merits will not excuse the appellant for not disclosing the cause of delay so long as Section 5 of
the Limitation Act stands on the statute book.
3. Daryao and Others Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, : The argument that res judicata is a technical rule and as such is irrelevant in dealing with
petitions under Article 32 cannot be accepted. But it is founded on the considerations of public policy. It is in the interest of Public at large that a
finality should attach to the binding decisions pronounced by Court of competent jurisdiction and it is also in the public interest that citizen should
not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation.
4. Shri Ramo Barman and Others Vs. Smt. Dagripriya Kachari and Others, : Preliminary issue decided by the Court once would act as res
judicata and at subsequent stage in the same suit the successor cannot re decide the same. ?.. Even Ex parte decree is res judicatas in subsequent
suit between the same parties.
5. Ishwar Dutt Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Another, : para 34 that High Court has wide power in terms of Section 107 of the CPC but it
can not have gone outside the pleadings and make out a new case.
6. 2005 SC 446: U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. State of U.P. : New Plea ?. HC cannot go into the lapsing of scheme one SC had
decided and relegated parties to the Authority. (Not Applicable at all)
7. Charanjit Lal Mehra and Others Vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Another, : para 7 and 8 : Judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6
validity : Admittedly suit premises was in possession of four brothers and rate of rent had exceeded Rs. 3500 Terms of lease deed clearly shows
that it was composite and joint tenancy and not individual one and rent agreed upon was toto. Rent cannot be split up to bring the suit in to the
ambit of under Rent Control Act. Objection regarding leased deed not registered was not raised before the lower courts eviction orders under
Order 12, Rule 6 on admitted facts. Proper.
8. Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad and Others Vs. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead) thr. Lrs. and Others, : see para 222, 223, 224, 235, 236 HN E
FRAUD is to be specifically pleaded and proved. Admission made by the petitioner in her pleadings as regards broad basing of the company and
issuance of 6475 shares in favour of the appellant Director-attempt to resile from admission by way of an amendment not permissible.
9. 2000(4) CCC 120 (SC) : Federal Bank Ltd. v. V.M. Jog Engineers Ltd. : Negotiating Bank""s duty is to examine with reasonable care if the
documents on their face confirmed to the terms of and condition of letters of credit once the issuing bank confirmed the genuineness of the
documents it cannot refuse to reimburse to negotiating bank which had discounted bill of exchange on basis of confirmation of issuing bank.
10. Pandurang Dhoni Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav, : Section 115 revision powers of HC : QUESTION NOT RELATED TO ITS
jurisdiction interfered with not warranted.
11. AIR 1948 Bom 232 V. Baldev Karsandas Patel v. Mohanlal Bapalal Bahia : Section 11 Ex parte decree "" passed on defendant''s non
compliance with condition precedent of defending suit operates as res judicata. See; An ex parte decree passed in summery suit filed on the
original side of the High Court on the defendant''s non compliance with the condition precedent of his getting leave to defend the suit operates as
res judicata being a decree on merits (This observation was made in subsequent suit filed by the aggrieved party that the promissory note whereon
the ex parte decree was based was without consideration and therefore it was treated as res judicata. But not otherwise) 1. The advocate for the
respondent original defendant No. 7 has also filed written submissions in support of the order impugned in the present revision application in
addition to his oral submissions. Their gist thereof could be set out as under.
46. The Trial Court while considering prayers for setting aside decree recorded four findings constituting ''Special Circumstances.'' Under the
provisions of Rule 4 of Order 37 of CPC namely (1) Instruments in question were cheques and not Demand Drafts indicating no privity of contract
between the parties. (2) The plaintiff""s attempt to pass it on as demand draft is viewed by the Court as fraud upon the Court vitiating the decree.
(3) The party cannot be made to suffer for the mistake of its advocate. (4) The non service of Exhibit 52 application upon the Defendant No. 7
HDFC Bank.
47. The advocate for the respondent further submitted that in plaint exhibit 1 in paragraph 10 and 13 which annexed to this petition the plaintiff has
averred that Demand Drafts/Bankers Cheques are issued as per RBI Guidelines. Thus the plaintiff is aware that Dd/Cheques are required to be
issued as per the RBI GUIDELINES yet he deliberately mis represents the cheques from current accounts to be demand drafts. The MICR
Guidelines prescribed that the cheques current account cheques are given ''29'' code. Whereas code No. ''12'' and code No. ''16'' are respectively
assigned to cheques and The suit instruments do not bear either of them.
48. The respondents"" advocate further submitted that it was the case of the defendant No. 7 that Defendant No. 1 Bank maintained and operated
a Current Account with the Defendant No. 7 HDFC Bank at its Vadodara Branch and Defendant No. 1 issued the impugned cheques to he
plaintiff from the said account and they were not demand drafts payable at par as alleged by the plaintiff. This stand was made clear by the
Defendant No. 7 at the earliest though its advocate mistakenly filed Written Statement instead of Leave to Defend Application. This has weighed
with the Trial Court in setting aside the decree.
49. The advocate for the respondent further submitted that the plaintiff knew that the instruments in questions were in fact cheques issued by the
Defendant No. 1 to 6 from their current accounts with HDFC Bank and hence he did not issue any notices to the defendant No. 7 the HDFC
Bank for making payment u/s 138 of the N.I. Act The copies of threes notices were on record being Mark 12/9 and 12/10. in the suit. In these
notices the plaintiff or its advocate has not referred these instruments any where as demand draft or even as bankers"" cheques as alleged by him in
the plaint. The plaintiff has therefore filed criminal complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act only against the Defendant No. 1 to 6.
50. The advocate of the respondent has submitted that during the entire proceedings no where the plaintiff even attempted to establish any
consideration for these instruments.
51. The advocate for the respondent has further submitted that the plaintiff has not made out any specific cause against the present respondent in
the plaint.
52. The respondent relied upon the observations of the apex court in case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others, that Section 15.
Commission of fraud on Court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in this matter (i.e. the matter relating to the facts of the
case before the Supreme court ) Fraud as well known vitiates every solemn act, Fraud and justice never dwell together. 16. Fraud is a conduct
either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the
former either by words or letter. 17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may
also give reason to claim relief against fraud. 18 A fraudulent representation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully
or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representation which he knows to be false and injury
ensues there from although the motive from which the representation proceeded may not have been bad. 19 In Derry v. Peek it was held In action
of deceit the plaintiff must prove actual fraud. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly, or without
belief in its truth or recklessly without caring whether it be true or false. A false statement made through carelessness and without reasonable
ground for believing it to be true may be evidence of fraud but does not necessarily amount to fraud. Such a statement if made in the honest belief
that it is true is not fraudulent and does not render the person making it liable to an action of deceit. 20 In Kerr on fraud and Mistake at P.23 it is
stated : ''the true and only sound principle o be derived from he cases represented by Slim V Croucher is this that : a representation is fraudulent no
only when he person making I knows I o be false but also when as Jessel M.R. pointed out he ought to have known or must be taken to have
known that it was false. This is a sound and intelligible principle and is moreover not inconsistent with Derry v. Peek.
53. The advocate for the respondent further relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Floating Services Limited v. MV San Fransceco
Dipalola on 09.03.2004 in Admiralty Suit reported in (2004) 52 SCL 762 (GUJ) and submitted that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.
54. The respondent also laid tress on the averments made in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 12512 of 2003 in para 5 that
though the applicant was given on 19.09.2002 no reply to the application was filed by the HDFC bank. Thereby implying that though copy of the
application exhibit 52 was given to the defendant No. 7 they filed no reply. This deliberate misleading indicates tendency of the plaintiff in making
false statement.
55. The advocate for the respondent has after making comparison of two provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 and Order 37 Rule 4 submitted that
Order 37 Rule 4 gives wider discretion to the Court in setting aside the decree on special circumstances and good case on merits.
56. The Advocate for the respondent invited this Court attention to the observations of the apex court made in case of Rajni Kumar Vs. Suresh
Kumar Malhotra and Another, in para 10 and submitted that powers under Order 37 Rule 4 are wide to set aside the decree on special
circumstances with reasonable case to defend.
57. The advocate for the respondents also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Omkar Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hardik Chemicals,
and submitted that as held by this Court in para 5 and 9 of the judgment the powers under Order 37 Rule 4 are so wide as to set aside decree on
existence of sufficient for non complying with the condition to leave to defend.
58. The advocate for the respondent relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Madhur Garments v. Hasmukh Shopping Centre and Ors.
reported in 1992(2) GLR 1580 contended that when the Counsel for the Defendant respondent could not appear on the date fixed in the case due
to unavoidable circumstances and that for his absence the party should not be allowed to suffer.
59. It was also submitted on behalf of the respondent that the apex court has made certain observations in para 33 of the judgment in case of
Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, the Courts have to take care of the aspect with regards to prima facie case, plaintiff''s entitlement to
the relief under law etc and submitted that the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2003 set aside by the court did not take care of these aspects.
60. The advocate of the respondent has also laid stress on the fact that as soon as the decree was passed on 15.09.2003 the plaintiff withdraw the
suit qua other defendants No. 1 to 6 who were responsible for issuing cheques in questions vide purshis dated 7.10.2003 exhibit 66.
61. The advocate for the respondent also contended that the Exhibit 37 application by the respondent original defendant No. 7 was pending its
decision as it was contended therein that no cause of action had arisen against the defendant No. 7.
62. It was also contended on behalf of the respondent hat the every authority possess powers to recall its own order in give circumstances The
apex court''s observation in case of Indian Bank Vs. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., as under ''the Authorities, be they Constitutional,
Statutory or Administrative, (and particularly those who have to decide a lis) possess the power to recall their judgments or orders if they are
obtained by fraud as Fraud and Justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). It has been repeatedly said that Fraud and deceit
defend of excuse no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent)'' The apex court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra
Singh and Others, observed that every authority has powers to recallits order if found to have been obtained by fraud.
63. This Court has heard the advocates for the parties at length and perused the record. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties let
there be enlisting of certain undisputable facts as they emerge from the record as under.
64. (1) The plaintiff has time and again stated that his services were hired by the Defendant No. 1 to 6 for procuring deposit in the Defendant No.
1 Co-operative Bank. (2) The Defendant No. 1to 6 agreed to pay 6 % of the amount that may be procured by the plaintiff through his expertise
and skills. (3) In short the plaintiff was to help the cooperative bank in canvassing deposits and clientele for it banking business and in return thereof
was to receive 6 % services or professional charges ( i. e commission as it was termed by the present respondent in this proceedings) (4) The
plaintiff has not produced any written contract even with Def. No. 1 to 6 for rendering his expertise for procuring deposits. (5) The Defendant No.
7 has contended that practice of giving commission for canvassing deposits by co-operative banks is deprecated and restricted by Reserve Bank
Of India. The respondent in its Civil Misc. Application No. 179 of 2003 in para 13 have categorically contended that as per RBI Guidelines no
Cooperative Bank can pay commission to any outsider other than their employee for canvassing deposits and maximum commission that could be
paid to its employee can never exceed the limit upper limit of half a percent of deposit. (6) The plaintiff has rather admitted that it was oral
agreement between him and the Def. No. 1 to 6 only. (7) The plaintiff has not even claim much less proved any privity of contract between him
and Def No. 7 (8) The plaintiff has mentioned the word ''cheques'' and not ''Demand Drafts'' for the instruments in question whereon the entire
Special Summary Suit No. 202 of 2001 is based, in all the notices issued to defendant No. 1 to 6 u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. (9) The plaintiff has not
issued any notices u/s 138 of the N.I. Act against the present respondent HDFC Bank and therefore rightly the plaintiff has not filed by Criminal
Complaint against present respondent HDFC Bank. (10) The Defendants No. 1 to 6 have denied the claim of the plaintiff its it''s totality they have
contended that the instruments in questions were given to the plaintiff only for inspiring confidence and impressing the prospective clientele for
canvassing their business and they were not to be deposited by the plaintiff in the bank at all. (11) In fact the Charotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank
Defendant No. 1 has filed police complaint being 20 of 2000 in DCB Police Station against the plaintiff for offices punishable u/s 420 of IPC and
the plaintiff had to rush for obtaining anticipatory bail and protective order u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. (12) The Defendant No. 1 to 6 have categorically
taken consistent stand that instruments in questions were without any considerations. (13) The plaintiff has not even unequivocally and succinctly
averred, much less proved or established that there existed any agreement between the Def. No. 1 to 6 and Def No. 7 for issuing demand drafts.
(14) The plaintiff has not proved that the instruments were Demand Drafts and not Cheques though it bears the current account number of the Def
No. 1 bank with HDFC Bank. (15)The Defendant No. 7 could not file its appearance though served within stipulated time. (16) The plaintiff file
affidavit for issuing summons for Judgment which was duly served upon the all the defendants and defendant No. 7""s advocate instead of filing
delay condonation application for filing appearance and application for Leave to Defend filed Written Statement on 25.04.2001 exhibit 17 (17)
The Defendant No. 7 also filed an application Exhibit 37 under Order 7 Rule 11 for dismissing the suit qua them as no caused of action was
disclosed in the plaint so far as the defendant No. 7 was concerned. The Court ordered it to be placed for reply and hearing (18) The plaintiff''s
advocate filed exhibit 52 application on 19.09.2002 at that time the advocate for the defendant No. 7 had not filed any purshis for retirement
exhibit 57 which came to be filed only on 28.02.2003. In other words the defendant No. 7""s advocate was there on the record representing the
defendant No. 7. when the application exhibit 52 dated 19.09.2002 came to be filed and when it was ordered to be slated for reply and hearing
(19) The plaintiff filed Special Civil Application No. 12515 of 2003 for early hearing and final disposal of Exhibit 52 application dated
19.09.2002. The High Court on 27.08.2003 issued Rule returnable on 16.09.2003 and expressed hope that by then the exhibit 52 application
would be heard. (20) The plaintiff served Rule upon the present Respondent H.D.F.C Bank only 10.09.2003 wherein this Court had hoped that
the exhibit No. 52, application would be disposed of by returnable date i.e. before 16.09.2003. (21) The Trial Court observed that though called
out defendant No. 7 or its advocate were not present. (22) The Exhibit 52 application decided first on the point of time and soon there after right
on the very same day the decree was passed against Defendant No. 7 on 15.09.2003 a day prior to the returnable date in the Special Civil
Application filed by the plaintiff for expeditious hearing of Exhibit 52 application. (23) The Trial Court has not taken care to pass any orders on
exhibit 37 filed by the defendant No. 7 for dismissing the suit qua them under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. (24)The Defendant No. 7 filed Civil
Msc. Application on 28.09.2003 itself as it came to know about the passing of decree and it applied for Certified Copy right on 18.09.2003. (25)
The plaintiff vide his purshis dated 7.10.2003 withdrew the suit qua def. No. 1 to 6 when the very application of the defendant No. 7 for setting
aside decree dated 15.09.2003 was pending hearing. (26) The plaintiff challenged the order dated 1.04.2004 passed by the Trial Court below
exhibit 20 amendment application of the defendant No. 7 and applicant of Civil Msc. Application No. 179 of 2003 in Special Civil Application
No. 3213 of 2004 which came to be dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 1.04.2004. Against the scenario of factual backdrop the rival
contentions deserve to be examined.
65. The apex court has observed in case of Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, as u/s 33. So far as the plea of bar as to maintainability
of suit for failure to seek further relief is concerned, we cannot find fault with the plaint as framed. The defendant was alleged to be a rank
trespasser who was in the process of committing a trespass and was allegedly raising unauthorized construction over the property neither owned
nor legally possessed by him. The relief of specific performance is not a further relief to which the plaintiff is entitled or which he could have sought
for against this defendant. Thus, from the point of view of the present defendant, we cannot find any such defect or infirmity in the relief sought for
by the plaintiff as would render the suit not maintainable and liable to be thrown out at the threshold. But there is substance in the other limb of this
submission made by the learned senior counsel for the defendant-appellant. Even if the suit proceeds ex parte and in the absence of a written
statement, unless the applicability of Order VIII, Rule 10 of the CPC is attracted and the Courts acts there under, the necessity of proof by the
plaintiff of his case to the satisfaction of the Court cannot be dispensed with. In the absence of denial of plaint averments the burden of proof on the
plaintiff is not very heavy. A prima facie proof of the relevant facts constituting the cause of action would suffice and the Court would grant the
plaintiff such relief as to which he may in law be found entitled. In a case which has proceeded ex parte the Court is not bound to frame issues
under Order XIV and deliver the judgment on every issue as required by Order XX, Rule 5. Yet the trial Court would scrutinize the available
pleadings and documents, consider the evidence adduced, and would do well to frame the ''points for determination'' and proceed to construct the
ex parte judgment dealing with the points at issue one by one. Merely because the defendant is absent the Court shall not admit evidence the
admissibility whereof is excluded by law nor permit its decision being influenced by irrelevant or inadmissible evidence.'' Thus the Court is never
absolved of its duty to determine the points arising out of pleadings of the parties. The Court, in the instant case even though defendant No. 7 did
not file its appearance in time, not absolve of its duty to examine as to whether plaintiff had made out his case so as to decree the suit for entire
claim against the defendant No. 7 only. The Court was also not absolved of its duty to examine as to whether the instruments in questions were in
fact cheques, bankers cheques or demand drafts before fastening the liability upon the defendant No. 7 only. The Court of the first instance was
duty bound to ascertain before passing any decree against the defendant No. 7 as to whether did there exist any privity of contract between the
plaintiff and the defendant No. 7 so as to rope them in or in absence of any privity of contract between them whether did there exist any agreement
of agency as alleged by the plaintiff between the Defdant No. 1 and defendant No. 7 for issuing the demand draft so as to fasten liability of
payment upon the defendant No. 7. Whether instruments in question were in fact issued on consideration. Whether Defendant No. 1 to 6 were
also liable to make any payment what so ever to the plaintiff as alleged. These and many other questions going into the roots of the matter had not
been addressed by the trial court while passing decree dated 15.09.2003 which came to be set aside vide impugned order dated 28.12.2004.
66. The proposition of law as annunciated by the apex court time and again in respect of operation of Order 37 and its various provision as
canvassed by learned advocate for the plaintiff cannot be disputed however these decisions cited by the plaintiff''s counsel do not lay down any
absolute proposition of law that when there is failure on the part of one of the defendants in making appearance within 10 days of the receipt of
summons the court has to pass decree against that defendant irrespective of the case of the plaintiff nature of evidence the plaintiff puts forward in
support of his claim and the relevant provisions of law applicable in given facts and circumstances of case. Therefore this Court needs no elaborate
dwelling upon the submissions and authorities cited in this behalf.
67. As it is by now very clear that powers under Order 7 Rule 13 and under Rule 4 Order 37 are quite different and distinct. The Order 37
provides for expeditious summary trial and therefore very stringent procedure is prescribed to be followed so as to cut down the avoidable delay in
lengthy procedure otherwise required to be followed in suit. Order 9 Rule 13 provides setting aside of only ex parte decree whereas there are no
such restrictions in exercising powers for setting aside decree under Order 37 Rule 4. It may also be noted that summery suit is provided in very
few crystallized claims suit so to say for the convenience. The plausibility of hardship likely to be caused to a genuine party for genuine reasons by
operation of various stringent provisions like failure to file appearance within 10 days entitling the plaintiff to have decree against the defaulting
defendant on the only basis of the averments made in the plaint as the defendant has no right to contest the suit without having condoned the delay
in filing the appearance and without obtaining leave to defend has warranted enactment of provisions like Order 37 Rule 4 conferring widest
possible powers upon the Courts to set aside the decree if the ''special circumstances'' pressed into service so warranted. In this context it would
be quite expedient to refer to the positively couched proviso to Rule 5 of the Order 37 which makes it incumbent upon the Court to grant leave to
defend in all cases where there is indication of substantial defense it says that provided that leave to defend shall not be refused unless the Court is
satisfied that the facts disclosed by the defendant do not indicate that he has a substantial defense to raise or that the defense intended to be put up
by the defendant is frivolous or vexatious.
68. The provision of Rule 4 of Order 37 deserves to be extracted herein below. The phrase 4 . Power to set aside decree.:- After decree the
Court may, under special circumstances set aside the decree, and if necessary stay or set aside execution and may give leave to the defendant to
appear to the summons and to defend the suit if it seems reasonable to the Court so to do and on such terms as the Court thinks fit. The phrase
''Special Circumstances'' occurring into the provisions of Rule 4 of Order 37 has rightly not been defined anywhere so far. Neither would it be
expedient nor would it be advisable to restrict it''s scope by encasing it into set of possible and plausible eventuality perceived by a court only in
contemporary context. The phrase has to be applied to the given facts and circumstances of each case. Keeping this perspective of phrase
''Special Circumstances'' in mind let us take a look at the facts and circumstances of present case and examine the trial court''s order dated
28.12.2004 impugned in the present proceedings u/s 115 of the CPC.
69. This Court has already enlisted glaring undisputable facts in paragraph 64 herein above. In addition thereto few more need to be enlisted to
demonstrate as what constituted special circumstances so that the trial court had to set aside the decree- dated 15.09.2003.
70. The defendant No. 7 was served. It was also served with summons for judgment and it engaged advocate. When the advocate is engaged the
party is justified in drawing presumptions and act upon the said presumption that he would do the needful in defending their case. The instant case
is not such as wherein the party i.e. defendant No. 7 completely neglected and did not engage advocate for months to gather and allowed the
courts to pass ex parte decrees. If the concerned advocate had taken due care in filing delay condonation application and leave to defend and
delay condonation therein than perhaps scenario would have been different. The other defendants No. 1 to 6 filed Leave to defend whereas in or
around that time the defendant No. 7""s advocate filed Written Statement pointing out as to why the defendant No. 7 was wrongly joined. The
advocate for the defendant No. 7 filed Application Exhibit 37 under Order 7 Rule 11 for dismissing the suit qua them as no cause of action had
been disclosed in the plaint. The Trial Court slated it for reply as well as for hearing which never took place as the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining
decree only on the ground of defendant No. 7""s default in filing appearance within stipulated time. The plaintiff filed exhibit 52 application on
19.09.2002 when the defendant No. 7""s advocate had not filed any retirement purshis. The advocate for the defendant No. 7 filed retirement
purshis only on 28.02.2003 and hence the Trial Court observed while disposing of Exhibit 52 application that defendant or its"" advocate were not
present when called out.
71. The Trial Court of the first instance did not insist upon the original instruments to be produced before it nor did it observed anywhere that
before passing final decree against defendant No. 7 it perused the original instruments. The apex Court in case of Neebha Kapoor v. Jayantilal
Khandwala reported in 2008(1) GLH 507 has held that for obtaining summary judgment ordinarily original documents must be produced, if not
produced that the party is under an obligation to prove its veracity as well as it''s genuine loss. In the instant the plaintiff has proved neither. This
requirement is equally applicable in cases where there are no disputes with regards to signature, genuineness etc as the original documents are most
essential for passing decree as the entire suit is based thereon. In the instant case production of original instruments before the court while passing
the decree finally against the defendant No. 7 was all the more necessary as the very nature of instruments, the MICR Code inscribed thereon, and
the fact that whether they were cheques or demand drafts were going to the very roots of the matter.
72. The Trial Court while passing decree on 15.09.2003 proceeded on the footing that instruments in questions were demand drafts without there
being original instruments available on record and without recording its reasons for so believing. The fact that MICR Guidelines by RBI having
statutory force go to show that the present respondent did have quite arguable case in their defense and the plaintiff''s say that the instruments were
demand drafts appeared to be contrary to the evidenced on record.
73. The plaintiff in all his notices u/s 138 of the N.I. Act referred the instruments to be cheques only. On that basis the plaintiff did not issue any
notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the defendant No. 7 nor did he file any criminal complaint against the defendant No. 7 u/s
138 of the N.I. Act. However for the first time in the plaint at places he referred to these instruments as demand drafts but at many places he
referred to them as bankers"" cheques. It would not be expedient at his stage u/s 115 of CPC to go onto this when the entire suit is pending. Suffice
it to say that in light of the judgment of the apex court in case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others, the plaintiff was under obligation
to put forth his case correctly and point out as to how the instruments were demand drafts and not cheques. The selective approach by the plaintiff
in fact vitiated the decree and it has rightly been set aside.
74. This Court is unable to accept the submissions of the Counsel for the plaintiff that the Trial Court while hearing application under Order 37
Rule 4 cannot look into the merits of the case at all without first being satisfied about existence of special circumstances that prevented the
applicant from complying the time-table of Order 37. As the very provisions of Rule 4 of Order 37 provides that while hearing the plea for setting
aside the decree the Court may grant leave to file appearance, condone delay and may grant leave to defend the Court is duty bound to hear the
applicant on merits so as to be satisfied as to whether any case of substantial defense is made out or not. The apex court in case of Rajni Kumar
Vs. Suresh Kumar Malhotra and Another, observed that the application under Rule 4 Order 37 has to be composite so as to make out case for
special circumstances as well as availability of substantial defense in the case of defendant seeking quashing of decree under Order 37 Rule 4 of
CPC.
75. The contention with regard to belatedly filing of amendment application rendering it time barred is also bereft of any merits as the plaintiff
challenged the order dated 4.03.2004 passed below exhibit 20 the amendment application to the Civil Misc. Application 179 of 2003 by
preferring Special Civil Application No. 3213 of 2004 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 1.04.2004 hence now at this stage it is not
open to the plaintiff to make out any ground of amendment application being time bared. Even on the merit it may be noted that the Civil Misc.
Application had been filed on 28.09.2003 itself.
76. Thus the bundle of facts narrated herein above constituted ''special Circumstances'' and strong substantial defense on the part of defendant No.
7 warranted setting aside of decree dated15.019.2003.
77. This brings a question that when the defendant has made out strong case for defending suit why the Court did not grant them leave to defend
while setting aside the decree vide its order dated 28.12.2004 itself. The Civil Misc. Application No. 179 of 2003 as it stood after it amendment
contained the prayers for restoring Special Summary Suit No. 202 of 2001 and for setting aside decree dated 15.09.2003 and any such other and
further relief. And after amendment the prayer for condoning delay if any in filing appearance in Special Summary Suit No. 2002 of 2001 and
further prayed that the court be pleased to condone the delay and give permission to the applicant to file leave to Defend Affidavit in the said suit.
Accordingly the Trial Court has rightly vide its order dated 28.12.2004 condoned the delay and permitted the applicant to file appearance and
affidavit for leave to defend. The Respondent is at liberty to file appropriate affidavit for leave to defend before the Trial Court.
78. In view of the aforesaid discussions the Court is of considered view that the order dated 28/12/2004 passed by learned 4th Jt. Civil Judge,
(S.D.), Vadodara, below exhibit-64 in Civil Misc. Application No. 179 of 2003 preferred by the original defendant No. 7, respondent herein
above, under provision of Order XXXVII Rule 4 of CPC for setting aside the decree dated 15.09.2003 passed by 9th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.),
Vadodara, in Special Summary Suit No. 202 of 2001 preferred by the plaintiff against the Cherotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank, a co-operative bank,
and others, including the present respondent i.e. HDFC Bank for recovery of Rs. 7,08,10,040 (Rs. Seven crore eight lacs ten thousand and forty
only) is being just and proper does not warrant any interference u/s 115 of the CPC. This CRA fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. Rule
Discharged. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated. Parties to bear their respective costs. R&P be sent back to the concerned Court
forthwith.
At this stage Shri. Dagli, learned Counsel appearing for the original petitioner makes a request for continuing the interim relief granted earlier for a
further period of four weeks. The request is accepted. The interim relief granted earlier shall continue for a period of four weeks from the date on
which the Certified Copy of this Judgment and order is ready for delivery. The Respondent will be at liberty to file appropriate affidavit for Leave
to Defend within 10 days from the expiry of the extended period of interim relief.
