Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Judgment on Procedural Grounds and Misrepresentation in Appeal
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Srinagar Bench, presided by Justice Shahzad Azeem, has upheld the trial court's decision in the case of Abdul Gani Ganie & Anr. v. Abdul Gani Bhat. The case revolved around a monetary dispute stemming from a fruit business transaction where the appellants were alleged to have breached a contract. The trial court had decreed the suit under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in favor of the respondent, Abdul Gani Bhat, for the recovery of Rs. 1.50 lacs based on a written agreement and a Demand Promissory Note.
The appellants challenged the trial court's judgment on several grounds, including alleged procedural irregularities in the institution of the suit and the failure to serve notice as per Order XXXVII Rule 2(b) and (c) CPC. However, the High Court found these challenges to be vague and not substantiated by particularized contraventions of the procedural provisions. Justice Azeem pointed out that the suit clearly fell within the ambit of Order XXXVII due to the explicit description in the plaint as a summary procedure suit for recovery based on a written contract and promissory note.
Furthermore, the appellants were found to have misrepresented material facts in their appeal, claiming that they were granted leave to defend and had filed a written statement, which was factually incorrect. This misrepresentation was deemed as serious misconduct, leading to the rejection of their contentions. The court highlighted that procedural compliance does not necessitate strict adherence to form, but rather sufficient averments indicating the suit's basis on a written contract for liquidated demand.
Additionally, the High Court underscored the appellants' failure to amend their application for leave to defend within the stipulated period, despite being granted an opportunity by the trial court. This failure undermined their argument that the trial court should have considered the unamended application, as once an amendment is allowed, reliance on unamended pleadings is not permissible.
In its analysis, the High Court referenced precedents from the Allahabad and Himachal Pradesh High Courts, reinforcing that unamended pleadings lose efficacy once amendments are permitted. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no procedural illegality or perversity warranting appellate intervention.
The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decree was upheld with no order as to costs.
Bottom line:-
Suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of liquidated demand based on written contract and Demand Promissory Note (Hundi) - Procedural compliance sufficient, pedantic adherence to form not required - Appellants suppressed and misrepresented material facts in appeal - Unamended pleadings lose efficacy once amendment is allowed and fresh pleadings are directed to be filed.
Statutory provision(s):
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XXXVII
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XXXVII Rule 2
