CPC (V of 1908) O. 37 R. 7 - Decree for redemption of mortgage - Stipulates that court shall prepare the preliminary decree in accordance with Order 34 Rule 7 CPC -
High Court could not have passed the decree for redemption without following the procedure laid down in Order 34 Rule 7 and 8 of the CPC . (2018)2 SCeJ 1903
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 37, 43, Rule 1 - Leave to
defend application filed by the respondent allowed - An order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of ordinary civil original jurisdiction is not an appealable order under Section
104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in such a case, the remedy would be available under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 and not under Clause 15
of the Letters patent - Delhi High Court Act, 1966 Section 10(1) - Letters Patent, Clause 15. (176) P.L.R. (Del.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 37, Rule 2
and 3 - When leave is not obtained by the defendant or leave is refused to him or where the defendant fails to comply with the conditional order, the defendant is precluded from further
contesting the plaintiff's stand - By reason of the wordings of Order 37 Rules 2 & 3 CPC, there is further disability from the defendant - The facts stated in the plaint must be
considered to have been admitted by the defendant and the plaintiff becomes entitled to judgment A.I.R. 1989 Bom. 150(1) relied.(182) P.L.R.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 37, Rule
3(6) - Suit for recovery under Order 37 - Once the defendant has admitted liability and did not move petition for leave to defend within the statutory period, in that eventuality, the trial
Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff.(175) P.L.R.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 37 - If the court has not
gone as far as to grant a decree summarily and reject the leave to defend, it has allowed for imposition of terms which will fit with in the fourth contingency - None of the defences in any
of the cases of the defendants has any prima facie merit and if the defendants are given an opportunity to defend, it is by way of mercy and, therefore, the condition imposed was tenable - If
leave to defend has been granted in a situation where the issuance of cheques are admitted by persons who cannot be said to be illiterate but who are in business and know the effect of
issuance of cheques, the direction for furnishing security only upto 50% itself must be taken to be liberal exercise of discretion. (183) P.L.R.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 37 - Suit on the basis of
pronote - In such like simple suits, if the Court considers that there is some triable issue having been raised by the defendant, then leave to defend is to be granted - But the Court does
not require to impose such a condition for furnishing security or to make payment in the Court. (182) P.L.R.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 37 - Trial
court has treated the suit under Order 37 CPC of the petitioner as ordinary suit for recovery - Plaintiff issued the cheque in favour of the defendant - Order upheld. Constitution of India,
Article 226 - Consideration - Only the lack of civil amenities and poor upkeep of toilets, poor lighting in classes and inadequate furniture - These are surely issues that the school must
address - I cannot enforce on a day to day basis of what the school lacks - I direct the school to appoint a Committee of representatives of BBMB - Include representatives of the parents and
school society in equal number viz, two persons each and take their guidance on regular basis to see that the petitioners' grievances are fully met - The Committee will have full power to
ensure due compliance of its recommendations made from time to time - The Committee shall be constituted and the functions of the Committee shall also be duly published after receiving
appropriate suggestions and objections from all the stake holders.(177) P.L.R.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 37 Rule
3(4) - Suit for recovery of Rs.10,62,000/- - Court ordered for serving summons of judgment as per Order XXXVII Rule 3(4) of the Code - Petitioner had sought leave of the Court to defend the
case stating that he had not borrowed the amount and the signatures on the pronote are forged - Mere denial of execution of promissory note - Trial Court rightly granted leave to defend the
case to the petitioner subject to his furnishing security equivalent to the amount sought to be recovered by the respondent - The security of the amount directed to be furnished cannot be
said to be on the higher side.(180) P.L.R.