M/s Rajsai Traders & others Versus Vinod

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

MP, 1850 of 2017, Judgment Date: Apr 02, 2018

Law laid down -

• After the stage of Order XXXVII Rule 3(4) of the CPC, first stage is to seek leave from the Court under Rule 5 and if the said leave is granted permitting the defendants to defend unconditionally or on such terms as appear to be just, sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the CPC would attract “at the hearing of such summons for judgment”. In case leave not applied or refused at the stage of hearing of such summons, the judgment forthwith may be pronounced but in case leave to defend is permitted for whole or part of the claim, the Court or Judge may direct him to give such security within such time as may be fixed. In case of violation of the same, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the judgment forthwith.
• Grant of leave to defend unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions may be ordered under sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 as appear to the Court or Judge as just but in case, it is required to be refused then the Court ought to specify that the defence as disclosed by the defendant cannot be said to be substantial defence to raise or the defence intended to be put by the defendant is frivolous or vexatious.
• The application for furnishing the security may be tenable but it ought to be granted at the time of hearing of the summons for judgment when the Court is satisfied that the claim of the plaintiff shall be defeated if the order of furnishing the security is not passed indicating the circumstances to exercise such discretion or the defendants would abscond to satisfy the decree which may be granted in the case.

M/s Rajsai Traders & others Versus Vinod