Gopal Prasad vs Vijender Singh
2014 Latest Caselaw 5099 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           CM(M) No. 919/2014
%                                                     13th October , 2014

GOPAL PRASAD                                                 ......Petitioner
                            Through:     None.


                            VERSUS

VIJENDER SINGH                                               ...... Respondent
                            Through:      None.

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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             No one is present for the petitioner in spite of the matter having

been passed over once. I have therefore gone through the record and am

proceeding to dispose of the petition.


2.             The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India impugns the order dated 08.9.2014 of the court below dismissing the

application of the petitioner/defendant under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).


3.             The subject suit for recovery of Rs. 4 lacs alongwith interest

was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant as the

CMM 919/2014                                                                     Page 1 of 3
 petitioner/defendant had failed to repay the loan amount of Rs. 4 lacs which

was granted.


4.             A reading of the impugned order shows that the suit was

decreed under the deeming provision of Order XXXVII CPC because the

petitioner/defendant in spite of being served of the summons of the judgment

did not file his leave to defend application. Trial court has noted that

signatures appearing on the receipt of the summons of judgment are identical

to the signatures appearing on the main summons of the suit, and both of

which signatures are of Sh. Uma Shankar, son of the petitioner/defendant.


5.             In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Rajni Kumar Vs. Suresh Kumar Malhotra & Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 315 trial

court has also rightly noted that the petitioner/defendant had to give special

circumstances ie pleading a good case on merits for setting aside the

judgment and decree on deemed admission dated 5.8.2014, however,

petitioner/defendant has failed to show any special circumstances because no

proof has been filed as to how the loan was repaid as was alleged by the

petitioner/defendant and also that the complaint to the police was made more

than two year after the loan was taken alleging that there was alleged force

and coercion upon the petitioner/defendant.


CMM 919/2014                                                                Page 2 of 3
 6.             Dismissed.




OCTOBER 13, 2014/ib         VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.