Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DAILYLAW 5146 (MAD)

U.Durairaj v. P.KRISHNAN S/O BALAKRISHNAN

CS/204/2023 · 2026-07-06

Master

Transfer Petitionbody2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 C.S.No. 204 of 2023 MASTER 06.07.2026 JUDGMENT 1. This summary suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass a judgment and decree against the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,07,18,356.15/- along with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal amount Rs.70,00,000/- from the date of the presentation of the plaint till the date of payment and interest Rs.37,18,356.15/- at 18% per annum between 16.04.2019 to 15.04.2022. 2. After registration of plaint, summons were ordered to be issued to the defendant. Summon was served on the defendant who entered his appearance and filed leave to defend application in A.No.2010 of 2026. The said A.No.2010 of 2026 was dismissed for non-prosecution by the applicant/defendant on 01.07.2026 and the case was adjourned to today for passing of Judgment. When the case was called in the call work the plaintiff counsel was present and passed over for the purpose of passing of judgment. Meanwhile, the defendant who was not present during the call work, appeared before this Court with his Advocate, who represented that he is coming on change of vakalat and is intending to take necessary steps to restore the A.No 2010 of 2026. Mere intention to take steps to restore the leave to defend application is not a bar for further proceedings for passing Decree and Judgment. Therefore, Judgment is pronounced. 3. At this juncture, it is useful to point out the relevant provisions of Madras https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 High Court Original Side Rules which deals with the procedure to try summary suits. Order VII Rule 1 runs as under: R.1. A suit to recover a debt or a liquidated demand in money, evidenced by a document, or any money payable by the defendant with or without interest, arising on a negotiable instrument or on a bond or a contract for payment of a liquidated amount of money evidenced by a document, or on a guarantee where the claim arises against the principal in the manner aforesaid, may, in case the plaintiff desires to proceed hereunder, be instituted by presenting a plaint in the form prescribed. For the purpose of this order “Liquidated demand” means a demand for the amount stated or so expressed that the ascertainment of the amount is a mere matter of calculation. Order VII Rule 5 runs as under: R.5. In any case in which the plaint and summons are in the form prescribed in this order, the defendant shall not defend the suit unless he obtains leave to defend from the Master as hereinafter provided. In default of the defendant obtaining such leave, or if he fails to defend in pursuance of such leave, the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for the sum claimed in the plaint, and in cases where interest is payable either by contract or statute, interest till the passing of the decree and further interest at six percent per annum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, and such sum for costs as may be prescribed. Order VII Rule 6 runs as under: R.6 (1) An application for leave to defend the suit shall be made to the Master supported by such evidence by way of affidavit as the defendant desires to place before the Court. (2) Leave to defend may be given unconditionally or subject to such terms and directions as the Master thinks fit. (3) The master shall, (a) if the defendant does not appear, on proof by affidavit of service of the summons on the defendant, or (b) if https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 leave to defend is not granted, pass a decree for the amount claimed and costs. 4. In this case, the defendant having filed an application to leave to defend in A.No.2010 of 2026 left it to be dismissed for non-prosecution. So, no leave to defend is granted to the defendant in this case. As per Order VII Rule 6 (3) of Madras High Court Original Side Rules, the Master shall pass a decree against the defendants for the amount claimed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the sum claimed in the plaint. 5. Therefore, it is ordered and decreed that the defendant do pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,07,18,356.15/- (Rupees One Crore Seven Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Six and Fifteen paise only) with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) from the date of presentation of the plaint to till the date of decree and 6% per annum for the amount of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) from the date of the decree to till the date of realization and the costs as fixed by the taxing officer. MASTER https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis