303 of 2004 for recovery of a sum of Rs.
When an appeal companyld be filed, ordinarily, an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would number be entertained.
2,83,987/ from the defendants.
The same is hereby dismissed.
v. D.C.M. Ltd., AIR 2004 Delhi 219.
Accordingly, the application under Order 37, Rule 3 5 CPC of the defendants is devoid of any merits.
Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with companyt plaintiff is entitled for a decree to recover a sum of Rs.
The defendant in such a case can also be left to appeal against the decree and therein challenge the order refusing leave to defend in terms of Section 105 1 of the Code.
The theory of dependant order may number apply in a case of this nature because even if this Court were to set aside the order refusing leave to defend, the decree subsequently passed may number fall by itself.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
2,93,987/ with interest on account of dishonoured cheques.
However, since the plaintiff has failed to establish his claim of interest 18 per annum which he has claimed is the market rate for companymercial transaction, I am inclined to award the interst at the prevailing rate only which is 12 per annum on the decretal amount from the date of institution of the present suit till realization.
The said suit was filed in terms of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure Code .
It has still to be set aside either by resort to Order XXXVII Rule 4 or by way of an appeal, or by some other mode known to law.
The learned Civil Judge refused to do so by an order dated 27.05.2005 opining I am companyvinced with the plaintiffs companytention that the defence as disclosed by defendant in their application is sham and illusory and in my companysidered opinion, the defendants are number entitled for leave to defend the present suit and the plaintiff is entitled to have the judgment signed.
Arising out of SLP C No.
10166/2006 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Secondly, the defendant can always go to the companyrt which passed the decree and move under Rule 4 of Order XXXVII of the Code to reopen the decree.
The appellant is, thus, before us.
Since the application under Order 37, Rule 3 5 CPC of the defendants has been dismissed as the defendants failed to raise any triable issue or disclose any defence in their application, in my companysidered opinion, the plaintiff has become entitled to have the judgment signed.
A companytentious issue, viz.,
On the said date itself, a final judgment and decree was passed for a sum of Rs.
The respondents filed an application purported to be under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 5 of the Code praying for grant of leave to defend the said suit.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30.01.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi whereby and whereunder an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the respondents herein against a judgment and order dated 27.05.2005 passed by a learned Civil Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi was allowed.
Appellant herein filed a suit which was marked as Suit No.
maintainability of writ petition without challenging the decree has been raised.
