Gujarat High Court
Dolphin Entertainment Park vs State Of Gujarat on 13 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/22512/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22512 of 2022
==========================================================
DOLPHIN ENTERTAINMENT PARK & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR ROHAN H RAVAL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MOHAMMED K VOHRA(10709) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS RINKLE H SHAH(13272) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 13/09/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners challenges the order
dated 18.08.2022 passed in Summary Suit No. 35 of 2021
passed by the Small Cause Court, Vadodara.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. NK Majmudar for the
petitioners. Learned advocate for the other side is not
present.
3. In the Summary Suit No. 35 of 2021, the learned trial
Court rejected the leave to amend application, on the ground
that the ground claimed by the plaintiff in the suit has been
indirectly admitted by the defendant, and as such there is no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/22512/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2024
undefined
triable or substantial issue is raised. The learned trial Court
passed the order declining the ground of leave to defend.
4. Having heard learned advocate Mr. NK Majmudar, what
could be noticed that the plaintiff has filed the Summary
Suit for recovery of Rs.2,98,089/- against the defendant of the
suit with the averments that some goods were sold to the
defendants through bills and invoices, which is reproduced on
the grounds of the plaint. It is submitted that as per the
bills and invoices the outstanding amount is of Rs.4,48,089/-
out of which the defendant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- only. Thus,
Rs. 2,98,089/- remaining outstanding amount, for recovery of
the said amount claiming it to be a liquidated damage.
5. After service of the summons, and after following the
procedures laid down under Order 37, the defendant filed the
leave to defend application for raising the defence, that the
goods which were supplied by the plaintiff were not upto the
mark. Therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to receive a decree
of summons for judgment as the defendant has triable issue.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the pleadings raised and the contentions raised by
the defendant in leave to defend application, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/22512/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2024
undefined
met, if the defendant is permitted to deposit 50% of the
amount claimed in the plaint, within two weeks of passing of
the order. In a nutshell, the petitioner is given a conditional
liberty to defend the suit provided to deposit 50% of the
principle amount i.e. Rs.2,98,089/-, before the learned trial
Court within two weeks from the receipt of this order.
7. For the forgoing reasons, this petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent. The petitioner is permitted to raise all the
contentions and to file written statements, failing to deposit
the amount as stated by this Court, will lead to secure the
judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
Radhika
