The Manipur High Court reaffirms that, following the 1977 amendment to Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC, leave to defend a summary suit cannot be granted unless the defendant deposits the admitted sum; this position, supported by Supreme Court authority, remains binding and is not relaxed for installment payments. This judgment upholds existing Supreme Court precedent and is binding within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRP(C.R.P. Art.227)/52/2025 of SMT. Kongkham Monorama Devi Vs SMT. Soram Muhini Devi |
| CNR | MNHC010030152025 |
| Date of Registration | 03-11-2025 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR |
| Court | High Court of Manipur |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Manipur; follows binding Supreme Court law |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents (Southern Sales and Services, B.L. Kashyap, IDBI Trustship) |
| Type of Law | Procedural law (Order XXXVII CPC – Summary Suit procedure) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a defendant can be granted leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC without depositing the admitted portion of the claim, especially post the 1977 amendment. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The 1977 amendment to Rule 3(5) of Order XXXVII CPC mandates that leave to defend “shall not be granted” unless the admitted portion is deposited. Supreme Court precedent (Southern Sales and Services, (2008) 14 SCC 457) confirms this strict requirement. The leave to defend regarding the contested portion can be unconditional, but the admitted amount must be deposited in full—not in installments—before the defendant is entitled to defend. The trial court followed these mandatory principles; thus, revisional interference is unwarranted. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The bar on granting leave to defend without deposit of the admitted amount is statutory and mandatory, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. The approach is that the grant of leave to defend is not to be considered the exception, but the rule applies strictly regarding the admitted portion. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Defendant admitted Rs.10,00,000 out of Rs.18,00,000 claim in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC; trial court ordered deposit of admitted sum within 45 days as precondition for leave to defend; revision petition filed seeking installment payment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate civil courts within the jurisdiction of the Manipur High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and legal practitioners, unless overruled or distinguished by the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that, after the 1977 amendment to Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC, deposit of the admitted portion of the claim is a mandatory precondition for leave to defend in summary suits.
- The requirement is strict—instalment payments of the admitted sum are not permissible.
- Followed binding Supreme Court precedent: leave to defend for the disputed amount may be granted, but only upon full deposit of the admitted portion.
- Cautions lawyers that attempts to seek relaxation of this requirement (e.g., by way of instalment payments) have no judicial support post-amendment.
- Confirms that trial courts are bound to comply with the second proviso to Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analyzed the post-1977 amendment legal framework of Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC, highlighting the mandatory provision requiring deposit of the admitted amount as a precondition to leave to defend.
- Cited and applied Supreme Court precedent, especially Southern Sales and Services and Others v. Sauermilch Design and Handles (2008) 14 SCC 457, which upheld the mandatory nature of this requirement.
- Noted that while unconditional leave to defend may be granted for the contested portion (disputed sum), such leave cannot extend to the admitted portion except upon prior deposit in court.
- Clarified that the earlier five postulates from Mechelec Engineers remain relevant only insofar as they are consistent with the amended rule—granting of leave is not an exception, but the deposit requirement is uncompromising.
- The High Court found the trial court’s directive—ordering deposit of the admitted amount within a specified time—was strictly in accordance with law.
- The petitioner’s plea for payment in monthly installments lacked legal basis in the amended provision and precedent.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner is a government servant, seeks permission to deposit the admitted sum (Rs.10,00,000) in monthly installments of Rs.10,000 each.
Respondent
- Opposed leave to defend unless deposit of the admitted sum is made in accordance with statutory requirement.
Factual Background
The defendant, as the lone defendant in a summary money suit under Order XXXVII CPC, admitted liability for part (Rs.10,00,000) of a total claim of Rs.18,00,000 based on a promissory note and receipt. After the plaintiff opposed the application for leave to defend, the trial court ordered the defendant to deposit the admitted sum within 45 days as a precondition to leave. The present revision petition challenged only the mode of deposit, not the legality of the trial court’s adherence to the statutory precondition.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC (as amended w.e.f. 01.02.1977), particularly the second proviso that states leave to defend “shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in Court.”
- The Court clarified that this is a mandatory, not discretionary, provision.
- The second proviso carries a negative mandate, leaving courts with no room to allow leave to defend without full deposit of the admitted amount.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows and applies binding Supreme Court precedent regarding Order XXXVII CPC.