Prakash Chand vs M/S. Icici Bank Ltd.
2014 Latest Caselaw 542 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  RSA No.210/2013 and C.M. Nos.14325/2013 and
                   14328/2013

%                                                    28th January, 2014

PRAKASH CHAND                                              ..... Appellant
                          Through:       None.
                          versus



M/S. ICICI BANK LTD.                                       ..... Respondent
                          Through:       Mr. P.K. Bhalla, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           No one appears for the appellant although it is 2.25 P.M. I have

therefore heard the counsel for the respondent and perused the record. I am

therefore proceeding to decide this appeal.

2.           The challenge by means of this RSA is to the concurrent

judgments of the Courts below; of the trial Court dated 23.4.2012 and of the

appellate Court dated 20.12.2012; dismissing the leave to defend application

filed by the appellant/defendant in a suit under Order 37 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC)        filed by the respondent/plaintiff/bank.         The
RSA No.210/2013                                                  Page 1 of 2
 defendant/appellant in the leave to defend application admitted taking of the

loan and making payment of only 12 instalments out of the 35 EMIs. It was

contended that appellant/defendant suffered loss on account of government

policy stopping operating diesel vehicles and therefore suit was contested.

3.           The Courts below in my opinion have rightly held that on such

a defence no triable issue arises and therefore leave to defend cannot be

granted. I may note that before the appellate Court an additional ground was

claimed of inclusion of certain charges towards dishonour of negotiable

instrument, however, since no such ground was pleaded in the application

for leave to defend, the appellate Court rightly declined to consider the

same.

4.           A second appeal under Section 100 CPC only lies if there is a

substantial question of law. Refusal to grant leave to defend in the facts of

the present case does not make out any substantial question of law for this

appeal to be entertained.

5.           The appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear

their own costs.




JANUARY 28, 2014/Ne                          VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.