TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether, in a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, leave to defend can be made conditional by requiring deposit of the admitted amount under the amended Rule 3(5); (ii) whether the revisional court could interfere with the order granting conditional leave in the absence of jurisdictional error.
Issue (i): Whether, in a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, leave to defend can be made conditional by requiring deposit of the admitted amount under the amended Rule 3(5).
Analysis: The amended scheme of Order 37 introduces a distinction between disputed and admitted claims. While a defendant showing a triable issue is entitled to defend the disputed part of the claim, the second proviso to Rule 3(5) makes deposit of the amount admitted to be due a condition precedent to grant of leave to defend. The earlier position under the unamended rule was treated as altered by the amendment, and the Court applied the amended proviso to uphold the condition imposed on the admitted portion.
Conclusion: Conditional leave to defend requiring deposit of the admitted amount was held to be permissible and valid.
Issue (ii): Whether the revisional court could interfere with the order granting conditional leave in the absence of jurisdictional error.
Analysis: Revisional interference is confined to jurisdictional error, illegality in exercise of jurisdiction, or material irregularity. The impugned order was passed by a court competent to deal with the subject matter and did not disclose any jurisdictional defect. In such circumstances, even if the order was said to be incorrect, it did not justify revisional correction.
Conclusion: No interference in revision was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The amended summary procedure justified the condition imposed on the admitted amount, and the challenge to the revisional order failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the amended Order 37 Rule 3(5), leave to defend a summary suit may be refused unless the admitted amount is deposited in court, and revisional interference is unavailable absent a jurisdictional error or material irregularity.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
