Manipur High Court
Smt. Kongkham Monorama Devi vs Smt. Soram Muhini Devi on 4 November, 2025
JOHN
TELEN KOM
`
Digitally signed by Sl. No. 1-2
JOHN TELEN KOM
Date: 2025.11.07
02:25:15 -08'00'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No.52 of 2025
With
MC(CRP(CRP.Art.227) No.90 of 2025
Smt. Kongkham Monorama Devi
Petitioner/s
Vs.
Smt. Soram Muhini Devi
Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
(ORDER)
04.11.2025.
Captioned 'Civil Revision Petition' ('CRP' for the sake of brevity)
has been presented in this Court on 03.11.2025 under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
2. The order sought to be revised is order dated '26.09.2025'
made in Judicial Misc.Case No.326 of 2022 in Original (Money) Suit
No.35 of 2022 on the file of Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal
West. This 26.09.2025 order sought to be revised and the Court which
made the order shall be referred to as 'impugned order' and 'said Trial
Court' respectively for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. Short facts imperative for appreciating instant order shows of
other detains and particulars are the revision petitioner in captioned CRP
is the lone defendant in Original Money Suit No.35 of 2022 on the file of
the said Trial Court that the suit is a money suit claiming Rs.18,00,000/-
with future interest on the foot of promissory note dated 20.03.2021 and
a money receipt; that the suit has been filed by the sole respondent in
the captioned CRP and suit has been filed under Order XXXVII of the
'Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for the sake of brevity); that the
suit is therefore a summary suit; that the petitioner took out an application
dated 31.05.2022 seeking leave to defend; that in this leave to defend
application, the petitioner in her capacity as sole defendant in the suit in
the said Trial Court admitted a portion of the suit claim i.e.,
Rs.10,00,000/- but disputed Rs.8,00,000/-; that thereafter the plaintiff in
the said Trial Court i.e., respondent before this Court filed a response
opposing the leave to defend plea; that after full contest the said Trial
Court made the impugned order directing the CRP petitioner to deposit
the admitted portion of the suit claim i.e., Rs.10,00,000/- within 45 days
from the date of order; that 45 days from the date of the impugned order
would elapse on 10.11.2025; that seeking revision of the impugned order,
captioned CRP has been filed.
4. Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of Mr. Abdul Baquee, counsel on record for the revision petitioner
submitted that the revision petitioner is a government servant and
therefore, the request is to pay the admitted sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in
monthly installment of Rs.10,000/- each.
5. This Court carefully considered the case file, the impugned
order and the fair submission made by the learned senior counsel. After
due consideration, this Court is of the considered view that the captioned
CRP does not pass muster in the admission board and deserves to be
dismissed. The reasons are as follows:
(i). There was an amendment to CPC in 1977, to be
précised on and from 01.02.1977. Post amendment, there
was a overhaul of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII which inter-alia
two provisos Sub Rule 5 therein. The second proviso to
Sub Rule 5 of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII mandates that leave
to defend in a summary suit shall not be granted unless
the amount admitted to be due is deposited by the
defendant in Court.. Amended Order XXXVII Rule 3 Sub-
Rule 5 together with two provisos thereat reads as follows:
'(5) The defendant may, at any time within ten days from
the service of such summons for judgment, by affidavit or
otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed
sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons
for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be
granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may
appear to the Court or Judge to be just:
Provided that leave to defend shall not be refused
unless the Court is satisfied that the facts disclosed by the
defendant do not indicate that he has a substantial defence
to raise or that the defence intended to be put up by the
defendant is frivolous or vexatious:
Provided further that, where a part of the amount
claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be
due from him, leave to defend the suit shall not be granted
unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by
the defendant in Court.'
(underlying and double underlying made by this Court for
ease of reference)
A careful perusal of the amended Sub-Rule 5 of
Rule 3 of Order XXXVII makes it clear that there is a bar
on said Trial Court granting unconditional leave when the
defendant admits a portion/part of the suit claim, the
reason is the second proviso has a negative import as
makes it clear that leave 'shall not be granted' unless
defendant deposits the admitted amount.
(ii). As regards the afore-referred amended Sub
Rule 5, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the same in
Southern Sales and Services and Other vs. Sauermil.
Ch Design and Handles reported in (2008) 14 SCC
457. In Southern Sales and Services And Other, a
conditional order was made and the same was assailed in
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court after
considering the amendment to CPC and more particularly
amendment to Rule 3 confirmed the conditional order
and made it clear that grant of leave to defend in such
cases should necessarily be conditional and the
condition should be qua the entire admitted portion of the
suit claim.
(iii). As regards the disputed part of suit claim
namely Rs. 8,00,000/- the defendant has got benefit of
unconditional leave. As regard the grant of leave to
defend the lead cases are Mechelec Engineers &
Manufacturers Vs. Basic Equipment Corporation
reported in (1976) 4 SCC 687, IDBI Trustship Services
Limited Vs. Hubtwon Limited reported in (2017) 1 SCC
568 and B.L. Kashyap and Sons Limited Vs. JMS
Steels and Power Corporation and Another reported in
(2022) SCC 294. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered
the five conditions in Mechelec Engineering in IDBI
Trustship which held that Mechelec Engineer's five
postulates stand superseded in the wake of amendment
to Rule 3 of Order XXXVII but the core principle remains
the same qua grant of leave to defend. Be that as it may,
in B.L. Kashyap was made clear that the approach with
regards to leave to defend applications should not be one
of denial being the rule and the grant being an exception.
In the case of hand the said Trial Court has followed
these principles as regard grant of leave for the contested
portion of the suit land.'
6. In the light of the narrative thus far, discussion and
dispositive reasoning, this Court has no hesitation in writing that the
captioned CRP does not pass muster in the admission board and the
same is dismissed.
7. Consequently, captioned Misc.case also perishes along with
main CRP and the same is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Ab. Surjit
