16 July 2024 Recovery >> Civil/Debt  

In a recent legal development, a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has shed light on the intricacies of summary suits and the implications of non-appearance in court proceedings. The case, titled Mamta Yadav v. Vinod Yadav & Ors., revolves around a dispute initiated by Ms. Mamta Yadav against the legal heirs of Sh. Jagdish Yadav, seeking recovery of Rs. 14,35,000 plus interest and costs under Order XXXVII CPC.

Ms. Mamta Yadav, acting as the respondent/plaintiff, instituted a suit against the petitioners/defendants alleging non-payment of a loan extended to Sh. Jagdish Yadav, who subsequently passed away. The claim was based on two dishonoured cheques issued by Sh. Jagdish Yadav in discharge of his debt.

Despite being duly served with summons under Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC, the petitioners failed to appear within the stipulated time period. Consequently, the trial court deemed the allegations admitted and proceeded to pass a decree in favor of the respondent/plaintiff on 30th April 2022, amounting to Rs. 14,35,000 along with interest.

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, the petitioners filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC, challenging the dismissal of their application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC. This application sought to set aside the judgment and decree on grounds of special circumstances.

The petitioners argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and personal hardships faced by one of the petitioners constituted special circumstances that prevented them from appearing in court within the prescribed time. Additionally, they contended that the liability to repay the loan rested solely with the deceased, Sh. Jagdish Yadav, and did not extend to his legal heirs.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, the Additional District Judge upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the petitioners' application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC. The court emphasized that the petitioners failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying their non-appearance in court.

Regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court acknowledged the exclusion of time for legal proceedings during the specified period but noted that the petitioners' application was filed belatedly, undermining their claim of being unable to appear in court due to pandemic-related restrictions.

Furthermore, the court clarified that the liability to repay the debt extended to the legal representatives of Sh. Jagdish Yadav to the extent of the estate left behind by him. Issues pertaining to the existence and extent of this liability were deemed appropriate for consideration in subsequent execution proceedings.

  Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908