Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.@mdashConcisely, the facts and material which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core
controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record are that, initially, respondent-plaintiff-Inderjit Chopra (for
brevity ""the plaintiff'') has instituted the civil suit against petitioner-defendant-Veer Trading Corporation (for short ""the defendant-Corporation"") for
recovery, under Order 37 CPC. The defendant was duly served on 17.03.1992 through its proprietor for 26.03.1992. He did not file any
application for permission to leave to defend the suit within a statutory period. According to the defendant that it has already paid an amount of Rs.
7000/- to the plaintiff and his counsel allured it to compromise the matter. Subsequently, the efforts for amicable settlement proved futile.
Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the appropriate application for leave to defend the suit
on 03.06.1993.
2. Taking into consideration the entire material on record and admission of the defendant, the trial Court dismissed the application of condonation
of delay and summarily decreed the suit for recovery of remaining amount, vide impugned judgment dated 26.09.1994.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-defendant has preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter
deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
5. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel, that petitioner-defendant has already paid an amount of Rs. 7000/-. The counsel for the plaintiff
promised it to settle the dispute and on that account, it could not file any application for leave to defend the suit within the statutory period and
since there was sufficient cause, so, the trial Court committed a legal mistake to dismiss its application for condonation of delay, are not only
devoid of merits but misplaced as well.
6. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the impugned amount under Order 37 CPC. The defendant has
admitted the liability and paid Rs. 7000/- to the plaintiff. It is not a matter of dispute that the defendant was served on 17.03.1992 for 26.03.1992.
It did not move any application for leave to defend the suit within the statutory period. The indicated ground/explanation put forth by the petitioner
to condone the long delay was that counsel for the plaintiff has allured it to amicably settle the dispute and it paid Rs. 7000/- to him in this regard.
The explanation put forth by the defendant was not substantiated by any evidence of compromise. Once the defendant has admitted liability and
did not move petition for leave to defend within the statutory period, in that eventuality, the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, by
virtue of impugned judgment, which, in substance is as under:-
I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. As already observed summons for judgment were served upon the defendant on 6.6.1992. The
application has filed on 3.5.1993 almost all months after the service of summons for judgment. Rs. 7000/- out of the suit amount has also been
paid by the defendant to the plaintiff without any reservation. In fact, in case any satisfaction of the whole claim had taken place on receipt of Rs.
7000/- only by the plaintiff from the defendant during the pendency of the suit, then a written compromise should have been filed in the Court and
got recorded in the Court. Accordingly, in the absence thereof, in my opinion, no ground whatsoever is made out for condonation of delay. The
application of the defendant is, therefore, dismissed.
Under the provisions of Rule 3(6) of Order 37 of the CPC where the defendant fails to apply for leave to defend the suit within 10 days of the
service of summons for judgment on him, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith. As such, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the
defendant for the recovery of Rs. 5825/- with full costs of the suit. Pendente-lite and future interest on the principal amount of Rs. 2500/- @ 12%
p.a. from the date of the institution of the suit till realization of the decretal amount is also allowed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be
consigned to the record room.
7. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and has recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such
judgment, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated u/s 115
CPC, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, so, the impugned judgment deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of
the case.
8. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as
there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is dismissed as such.
