Interim Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 20 Civ Suit 194/24
M/s Gupta Fabrics Vs. M/s Auto Zone
11.08.2025
Present: Sh. Yashvant Thakur, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
(through VC).
Sh. Kishore Sakrani, Ld. Counsel for defendant
(through VC).
Put up for orders at 4 PM.
Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/11.08.2025(SP)
At 04:00 PM.
Present: None.
Order on Application of the Defendant under Section 151 CPC
for consideration of additional Defence.
1. The present application under Section 151 CPC has been
filed by the defendant seeking to raise an additional defence at
the stage when the matter was already fixed for orders on the
defendant’s application under Order 37 Rule 5 CPC for leave to
defend.
2. The defendant’s case is that after filing the application for
leave to defend, he noticed that the invoices filed by the plaintiff
did not contain any terms and conditions, and hence, according to
him, the same could not form the basis of a summary suit under
Order 37 CPC. The defendant relies upon A.R. Electronics Pvt.
Contd…
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
Ltd. v. R.K. Graphics Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 15.03.2002)
and Ms. Deep Shikha @ Dolly v. Smt. Archana Jain (Delhi High
Court, 02.06.2023) to contend that such a plea, being a question
of law, can be raised even at the stage of arguments.
3. The plaintiff has opposed the application, contending that
the plea now sought to be raised is an afterthought, not disclosed
in the original application for leave to defend, and is based on
new factual assertions rather than a pure question of law. It is
argued that Order 37 CPC mandates disclosure of the entire
defence in the initial application for leave to defend, and no
exceptional circumstances have been shown to justify the belated
plea.
4. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
It is settled law that in a summary suit under Order 37 CPC, the
defendant is required to disclose all substantial and bona fide
defences in the application for leave to defend itself. The purpose
of the summary procedure is expeditious disposal, which would
be defeated if defendants are permitted to introduce new pleas at
the stage of arguments after conclusion of hearing on the leave to
defend application.
5. The judgment in Deep Shikha @ Dolly v. Archana Jain is
distinguishable on facts. In that case, the plea involved a pure
question of law arising from the facts already pleaded. In the
present case, the defendant’s plea regarding absence of terms and
conditions in the invoices is based on new factual assertions
Contd…
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
which were never pleaded earlier. The reliance on A.R.
Electronics Pvt. Ltd. is also misplaced, as the applicability of that
decision would have to be tested on the basis of pleadings and
evidence, which is not the subject matter at this belated stage.
6. No exceptional circumstances have been shown for not
raising this plea at the initial stage. The application appears to be
an afterthought and an attempt to delay proceedings.
7. Accordingly, the application under Section 151 CPC is
dismissed as devoid of merit.
8. Put up for further proceedings on 15.09.2025.
Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/11.08.2025
-- 3 of 3 --