Madras High Court
Shantanu Prakash vs Lenovo India Pvt. on 25 June, 2021
C.R.P.No.2300 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.No.2300 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.14432 of 2020
Shantanu Prakash ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Lenovo India Pvt., Ltd.,
Ferns Icons Level 2,
Doddenakundi village,
Marathahalli outer ring road,
Bangalore – 560 037
2. Educomp Solution Ltd.,
No.454, GNT Road Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066 ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 to set aside the Impugned order dated 11.11.2019
made in I.A.No.211 of 2015 in O.S.No.8 of 2014 on the file of learned IV
Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur @ Ponneri.
For Petitioner : Mr.Thriyambak J. Kannan
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2300 of 2020
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair
and final order made in I.A.No.211 of 2015 in O.S.No.8 of 2014 dated
11.11.2019 by the learned IV Additional District Judge,
[email protected]
st
2. The factual matrix leading to the present case is that the 1
respondent herein filed O.S.No.8 of 2014, which is a Summary Suit before
the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur under Order 37 Rule 1 and
st
2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for a direction to pay the 1
respondent a sum of Rs.1,86,36,050/- together with pendente lite interest
at 2% per month from the date of overdue till the date of realisation.
nd
3. The petitioner and the 2 respondent, who were the defendants in
summary suit in O.S.No.8 of 2014 had filed I.A.No.59 of 2014 seeking to
condone the delay of 10 days on the part of the defendants in entering
appearance in the suit that came to be dismissed on 19.11.2014.
nd
Thereafter, again, the petitioner and the 2 respondent, who were the
defendants in Summary Suit in O.S.No.8 of 2014, have filed I.A.No.60 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2300 of 2020
2014 seeking to recall the order dated 21.03.2014 before the Additional
District Court, Ponneri and the same came to be dismissed on 19.11.2014.
Meanwhile, the summary suit came to be finally decided and decreed in
st
favour of the plaintiff, the 1 respondent herein, by order dated
21.11.2014. As against which, I.A.No.211 of 2015 in Summary Suit No.8 of
nd
2014 came to be filed by the petitioner and the 2 respondent under
Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 310 days in filing the
application to set aside the exparte decree dated 21.11.2014.
nd
4. In the meanwhile, the decree holder, plaintiff, 2 respondent
herein filed Execution Petition No. 77 of 2015 in O.S.No.8 of 2014 and the
E.P. Came to be finally decided by the IV Additional District Court, Ponneri
resulting in the arrest of the petitioner herein.
5. It is seen from the records that as against the order passed in
E.P.No.77 of 2015, Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.520 of 2016 was
filed by the defendants in O.S.No.8 of 2014, which came to be later on
withdrawn for the reason that since the Judgment Debtor is in Gurgaon, he
may have to proceed with the execution proceedings transmitted to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2300 of 2020
Guragaon and he also made an endorsement for withdrawing the
execution petition in E.P.No.77 of 2015 on the file of IV Additional District
Court, Ponneri. On recording the same, the Civil Revision Petition was
permitted to be withdrawn. Meanwhile, I.A.No.211 of 2015 in O.S.No.8 of
nd
2014 was taken out by the petitioner and the 2 respondent to condone
the delay of 310 days in setting aside the exparte decree dated 21.11.2014
and the same was taken up for consideration, by order dated 11.11.2019,
the learned IV Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Ponneri dismissed
the said petition, as against which, the present Revision Petition has been
filed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
documents placed on record. Though notice was served on the
respondents, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention
has relied on the Judgments, which are as follows:-
(i) 2009 (4) CTC 722 [S.Janaki Vs. M/s Swetha Associates, rep. By
its Partner, Mr.P.Sureshkumar and others]
(ii) 2010 SCC Online Delhi 760 [Babu Lal Yadav Vs. M/s R.S.Yadav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2300 of 2020
& Co., & Another]
(iii) 2016 SCC Online Bombay 723 [Business Jet India Ltd., Vs.
Hymayun Dhanrajgir and Another]
(iv) 2006 (1) CTC 709 [Subatra and Others Vs. C.Pavalamani]
(v) 2006 (1) CTC 721 [ Deivendran Vs.Subbiah Nadar and Others]
(vi) Unreported Judgment in C.R.P.(NPD) No.998 of 2010 [D.Rajini
Sukumar Vs. Pushpa Kumari]
(vii) 2013 2 LW 949 [M/s.Shivsu Canadian Clear International
Limited Vs. Freightcan Global Logistics Private Limited]
(viii) 2015-1-L.W. 889 [Pachamuthu Vs. K.Thangamuthu]
(ix) (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 568 [IDBI Trusteeship Services
Limited Vs. Hubtown Limited]
8. Upon going through the records placed before this Court and on
hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen
that a summary suit has been filed as early as 18.12.2013 in O.S.No.8 of
st
2014 by the 1 respondent herein, as against the petitioner, who was
nd st
arrayed as 2 defendant and his company is arrayed as 1 defendant
under Order 37 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2300 of 2020
under Order 37 caused a duty upon the defendants in Rule 2 and 3,
wherein the defendants shall not defend the suit referred in Sub Rule 1
unless they enter appearance and in default of their entering appearance,
the allegation in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff,
st
viz., 1 respondent, shall be entitled to the decree for any sum not
exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons together with interest at the
rate specified, if any, upto the date of decree and as such, sum for cost, as
may be determined by the High Court from time to time by the Rules made
in that behalf and such decree may be executed forthwith. Hence the
procedure contemplated for the defendants to make appearance is further
elucidated in Rule 3 that the defendants may at any time within ten days of
service enter an appearance either in person, or by pleader and in either
case, he shall file in court the address for service of notices on him.
9. The Civil Procedure Code had cast a duty upon the defendants to
enter appearance and to seek leave to defend in any day within 10 days
from the date of service of summons, as contemplated under Rule 3 of
Order 37, failing which, the court can proceed, as deemed admission by
the defendants and the plaintiff shall be entitled for the decree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2300 of 2020
10. As far as the present case is concerned, there is no doubt that
the service of summons in the summary suit was effected. But the
defendants had failed to appear and filed the leave to defend application
within the specified time and sought the intervention of the Court to
condone the delay of 10 days in entering the appearance. The Petition in
I.A.Nos.59 and 60 of 2014 came to be dismissed on 19.11.2014. Further,
originally when I.A.No.59 of 2014 was filed seeking to condone the delay
of 10 days in entering appearance in the suit, the same came to be
dismissed on 19.11.2014 and on the very same day, when I.A.No.60 of
2014 filed to recall the order dated 21.03.2014, the said I.A., was also
dismissed and the said order is neither challenged nor appealed and
attained finality. No doubt thereafter, the learned IV Additional District
Judge, Ponneri, in compliance to the Order 37 Rule 2, 3 has decreed the
st
suit in favour of the plaintiff, the 1 respondent herein, by Judgment and
decree dated 21.11.2014. Thereafter filing I.A.No.211 of 2015 seeking
condonation of 310 days delay in filing the application to set aside the
exparte decree dated 21.11.2014 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, does
not arise, as the petitioner has not challenged the original dismissal of the
petition filed to condone the delay in seeking leave and to recall the order
dated 21.03.2014 and when the petitioner has not taken out any steps to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2300 of 2020
set aside the order, the petitioner, who was defendant in the summary suit,
cannot later on file, petition to set aside the exparte decree made in the
summary suit. As such, when the leave was denied, the question of
defending the suit does not arise unless otherwise the denial of leave is set
aside by a Higher Forum.
13. Coming to the present case on hand, it is clear that the petitioner
had sought leave and the same was denied as early as on 21.03.2014
itself and since the petitioner did not pursue the final order made in
I.A.Nos.59 and 60 of 2014 in O.S.No.8 of 2014, the petition filed to
condone the delay of 310 days in filing the application to set aside the
exparte decree dated 21.11.2014 in I.A.No.211 of 2015 in O.S.No.8 of
2014, as such, not acceptable. Eventhough there are reasons stated in
the petition for not acting in accordance with law, this Court cannot accept
the same when the same are not tenable. That apart, the Judgments
relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are mostly on the issue
of condonation of delay, which does not arise in the present petition and
has got no relevance for the present case.
14. In view of the above stated reasons and the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2300 of 2020
passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur @ Ponneri
needs no intervention, as the petitioner has not made out any valid
grounds seeking intervention from this Court. Accordingly, the present Civil
Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking Order
To
1. The learned IV Additional District Judge,
Thiruvallur @ Ponneri.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2300 of 2020
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
ssd
C.R.P.No.2300 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.14432 of 2020
25.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
