Madras High Court
M/S Vgc Bags vs M/S Sinecera Import And Export ... on 5 February, 2021
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 05.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019 and
C.M.P.Nos.6972 and 7432 of 2019
M/s VGC Bags
Represented by its Prop. Rani Baskar
No.1/50 H, JJ Nagar, East Colony,
Reddiyarpatti,
Pallayamkottai ... Petitioner in both the petitions
Vs.
M/s Sinecera Import and Export Pvt., Ltd.,
rep. by its General manager
Having Office at 111A, 2nd Floor,
Mount View Building,
Guindy,
Chennai - 32 ... Respondent in C.R.P.No.1059 of 2019
M/s Sinecera Textiles Pvt., Ltd.,
rep. by its General manager
Having Office at 111A, 2nd Floor,
Mount View Building,
Guindy,
Chennai - 32 ... Respondent in C.R.P.No.1155 of 2019
Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019
Code to set aside the order dated 18.01.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.2432 and
2433 of 2017 in O.S.Nos.6173 and 6174 of 2017 on the file of learned VI
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai respectively.
For Petitioner : Ms.P.Meghana Nair
For Respondents : Mr.M.Ganeshan
COMMON ORDER
Since the issues involved in these Revision Petitions are one and the
same, they are taken up together and a common order is being passed.
2. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order
passed in I.A.Nos. 2433 and 2432 of 2017 in O.S.Nos.6174 and 6173 of
2017 on the file of VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated
18.01.2019 by raising various grounds.
3. The case of the petitioner / defendant is that the suit in
O.S.No.6173 of 2017 is filed by the respondent / plaintiff for passing a
Judgment and decree against the petitioner / defendant to pay a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019
Rs.1,39,298/- with 21% interest per annum on Rs.1,08,702/- from the date
of plaint till the date of realisation; another suit in O.S.No.6174 of 2017 is
also filed by the respondent / plaintiff for passing a Judgment and decree
against the petitioner / defendant to pay a sum of Rs.6,36,075/- along with
21% per annum on Rs.1,19,792/- from the date of the plaint till the date of
the realisation. The petitioner / defendant had filed I.A.Nos.2432 and 2433
of 2017 denying all the averments stated in the suits, which were filed under
Order 37 Rule 2[A] of CPC r/w Order VII Rule 1 of CPC. The petitioner /
defendant was engaged in production of high quality GSM shopping bags
made of NOLWOVELL cloth and the defendant had several years
reputation in the said business and the respondents / plaintiffs used to
supply cloth materials for stitching those bags and accordingly, there were
commercial business transaction with the respondents / plaintiffs.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner / defendant that last batch of
cloth supplied by the respondents / plaintiffs was of inferior quality, which
lead to the rejection of bags supplied by the petitioner / defendant to the
customers causing heavy loss to the defendant. Further, he submitted that
on 16.06.2015, the defendant had purchased machines for stitching the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019
said shopping bags from the respondents/ plaintiff's sister concern, namely,
M/s Sinicera Import and Export Pvt., Ltd., for a sum of Rs.7,96,950/- and he
has taken the same as loan. The said sister concern, did not initiate any
steps for installing the same in the petitioner / defendant's premises, nor
they guided the defendant with the know-how and other materials in order to
put the machines for use, as it is the duty of the respondent / plaintiff's
sister concern to install the same.
5. In consequence, the petitioner / defendant had made several oral
request to the respondents / plaintiffs, but they have not taken any initiative
to set up the said machines, as a result, the said machines are still lying idle
in the petitioner's / defendant's premises. The cloth material supplied by the
respondents / plaintiffs were of lower quality and due to the financial crunch,
and the loan taken by the petitioner / defendant could not be paid for
purchasing the machines. The defendant took two years to recover from
the debt and the plaintiffs has been informed about the said issue. In the
meanwhile, the plaintiff's sister concern had filed suits before this Court in
O.S.No.6173 of 2017 and O.S.No.6174 of 2017 and in both the suits, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019
value claim works out to Rs.7,55,868/- which is almost the value of the
machine supplied to the petitioner on 16.06.2015. The respondents /
plaintiffs are aware of the same and for the notice sent by the plaintiffs, the
defendant had informed all the aforessaid averments. As the petitioner /
defendant has a valid counter claim against the respondents/plaintiffs, the
defendant had filed the above said I.As seeking leave of the said trial court
to defend the suits.
6. In contrary, counter affidavits were filed by the respondents
/plaintiffs who had submitted that the said petitions are not maintainable,
because the petitioner / defendant had failed to show on which ground there
are triable issues involved in the said suits. The petitioner / defendant
admitted that they had the commercial transaction with the respondents /
plaintiffs and in that regard, there was a due of Rs.7,55,868/- which was
omitted to be paid by the petitioner / defendant inspite of repeated request.
That apart, only after issuance of a suit notice, the respondents have filed
these suits claiming a sum of Rs.7,55,868/-. The petitioner had purchased
the machines on the basis of loan, but had not shown any material to the
plaintiffs that they have not installed the said machines.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019
7. Further, the respondents/ plaintiffs denies the above stated facts
and stated that the petitioner was called upon to prove that the respondents
/ plaintiff are aware of the same. Even when the legal notices were sent on
behalf of the plaintiffs, the statement of the petitioner / defendant that he
had informed the plaintiffs are also disputed.
8. The court below after considering the rival submissions had
dismissed the claim of the petitioner / defendant by observing that there is
no valid material defense against the respondents / plaintiffs has been made
out and the petitions were dismissed. As against the same, the present
Civil Revision Petitions are filed.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and
perused the documents placed on record.
10. It is noted that the suits documents were based on only an
Invoice No.210 dated 18.06.2015 and the same is evident from the
petitioner/defendant's side exhibit, namely, Ex.P.1. The respondents /
plaintiffs have filed exhibits Ex.R1 to R4, namely, other two invoices, copy of
the legal notice and copy of the statement of accounts and acknowledgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019
card respectively.
11. It is seen that the I.A.Nos.2432 and 2433 of 2017 have been filed
under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of CPC by the petitioner / defendant seeking
leave to defend the suits and the same were dismissed by the learned XIV
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. After perusing the materials filed
by either side, it is revealed from the records that the respondents/plaintiffs
filed summary suits under Order 37 Rule 2(a) of CPC r/w Order VII Rule 1
of CPC seeking for recovery of Rs.6,36,075/- along with 21% per annum
on Rs.1,19,792/- and recovery of Rs.1,39,298/- along with 21% per annum
on Rs.1,08,702/- being a commercial transactions between the respondents
/ plaintiffs and the petitioner / defendant herein. The facts are that on
account of supply of certain goods by the respondents / plaintiffs to the
petitioner / defendant and the petitioner / defendant having failed to repay
the values for the goods supplied, the respondents have preferred the suits.
By way of above said Interlocutory Applications, the petitioner / defendant
have approached the trial court seeking leave to defend the suits.
12. On the perusal of the entire documents placed on record, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019
clear that the suits being summary suits, the petitioner / defendant has
invoked Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC seeking leave to defend the suit on
the basis that the respondents / plaintiffs had supplied inferior quality cloth
and defective machines to petitioner / defendant, due to which the machines
were not installed and the respondents / plaintiffs did not even assist the
petitioner in installing the same, thereby resulting in heavy loss to the
petitioner for having kept the machines lying idle and not put for use till date.
13. Further, the petitioner's case is that it took two long years for him
to recover from the loss incurred due to the supply of inferior quality cloth
and due to which, it was not sold. The respondents / plaintiffs have not
guided the petitioner / defendant for running the machines and if the
machines are put to use, there would not have been any loss to the
petitioner / defendant, stating these reasons, petitioner / defendant have
filed applications seeking leave to defend the suit and apart from this, the
petitioner has not chosen to state any valid reason seeking leave to defend
the summary suit initiated by the respondents / plaintiffs.
14. In a summary suit, the onus is on the petitioner / defendant to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019
plead valid and sufficient reasons either by way of disputing the claim with
proper proof or even plead that they are not liable to pay the entire amount or
part of the amount disputing the prayers sought in the summary suit.
15. As far as the present cases are concerned, it is clear from the
affidavits filed in support of the petitions seeking leave to defend, the
petitioner / defendant has neither disputed the claim nor placed any material
facts before the the trial court to permit the petitioner / defendant to defend
the summary suit. The trial court has rightly dismissed the petitions filed by
the petitioner / defendant for not disclosing any valid reason in support to
defend the summary suit filed by the respondents / plaintiffs. Unless and
until there is any dispute raised as against the claims made in summary
suits, the petitions seeking leave to defend the suit cannot be allowed.
Moreover, merely blaming the plaintiffs in the summary suits without any
substantial proof or even denying the claim made by the plaintiffs, the leave
to defend the petitions cannot be sustained at all.
16. From the above it is clear that the petitioner / defendant has not
denied that he is liable to pay any such amount as claimed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019
respondents / plaintiffs in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions
seeking for leave to defend the suit. A mere filing of invoices and account
statements without any valid substantial proof will not be sufficient to allow
the leave to defend petitions.
17. From the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find
any infirmity in the orders passed by the trial court in I.A.Nos.2432 and
2433 of 2017 dated 18.01.2019 in dismissing the leave to defend petitions
filed by the petitioner / defendant. Hence both the Civil Revision Petitions
fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking Order
ssd
To
1. The XVI Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019
High Court, Madras
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
ssd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019
C.R.P.Nos.1059 and 1155 of 2019 and
C.M.P.Nos.6972 and 7432 of 2019
05.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
