Strict leave to defend compliance and waiver of jurisdiction objection kept the summary decree intact.

In a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, strict compliance with the leave to defend procedure was required, and the absence of a duly placed application within time, together with repeated failures to honour settlement terms, meant the decree could not be reopened or the suit restored. The Court also held that a territorial jurisdiction objection could not be raised at the appellate stage after the appellants had entered settlements without disputing jurisdiction earlier. As a result, the appeal failed and the decree in the summary suit remained undisturbed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to have the decree set aside and the suit restored for consideration of a leave to defend application despite their failure to secure timely filing and repeated non-compliance with settlement terms. (ii) Whether the appellants could raise a territorial jurisdiction objection at the appellate stage after entering into settlements without disputing jurisdiction earlier.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to have the decree set aside and the suit restored for consideration of a leave to defend application despite their failure to secure timely filing and repeated non-compliance with settlement terms.

Analysis: The suit was a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where the leave to defend mechanism has to be complied with strictly. The appellants had been duly served, yet no leave to defend was placed before the Court within the prescribed time. The record also showed repeated adjournments, opportunities for settlement, and two settlements that were not honoured by the appellants. In these circumstances, the absence of a duly placed leave to defend application could not justify reopening the decree.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to restoration of the suit or reopening of the decree on the basis of the alleged leave to defend application.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants could raise a territorial jurisdiction objection at the appellate stage after entering into settlements without disputing jurisdiction earlier.

Analysis: The Court noted that the appellants had entered into compromise arrangements during the pendency of the proceedings and had not raised a jurisdictional objection at that stage. A party that voluntarily enters into settlement without questioning jurisdiction cannot be permitted to raise the same objection later after taking advantage of the proceedings and the adjournments granted for settlement.

Conclusion: The territorial jurisdiction objection was not available to the appellants at the appellate stage.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, and the decree passed in the summary suit was left undisturbed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summary suit, failure to comply with the strict leave to defend requirements, coupled with repeated unhonoured settlements, justifies decree against the defendants, and a jurisdiction objection not raised when settlements were entered cannot be revived later.

---