https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460781 A claim for the price of goods under a written contract was treated as a debt for summary-suit purposes because it was an ascertained, presently enforceable sum, so the suit was maintainable as a summary suit. The procedural rules governing summary suits and the Original Side Rules were read as compatible, and the amended summary procedure applied to such a claim. A section 34 stay application was not barred merely because it was filed after the 20-day period under the summary procedure, provided no decree had been passed; the court also accepted sufficient cause to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The decree and order were set aside and the stay application remitted for decision on merits. en-us Thu, 10 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:27:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460781 A claim for the price of goods under a written contract was treated as a debt for summary-suit purposes because it was an ascertained, presently enforceable sum, so the suit was maintainable as a summary suit. The procedural rules governing summary suits and the Original Side Rules were read as compatible, and the amended summary procedure applied to such a claim. A section 34 stay application was not barred merely because it was filed after the 20-day period under the summary procedure, provided no decree had been passed; the court also accepted sufficient cause to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The decree and order were set aside and the stay application remitted for decision on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460781