Right To Go For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Vested Right Which Can’t Be Taken Away Under Procedure Of Summary Judgment: Calcutta High Court

The High Court was considering an application filed by the defendants claiming summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the amended CPC, in view of the promulgation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The ground for summary judgment was that the plaintiff had no real prospect of succeeding on the claim.

The Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy held, “Therefore, right to go for trial in an appropriate case is a vested right of the plaintiff which cannot be taken away under the procedure of summary judgment without holding the trial of the suit. If the grounds taken by the defendant, as in the instant case, claiming a summary judgment against the plaintiff does not satisfy the tests laid down under Rule 3 to Order XIII-A of CPC, as amended, it shall not be a fit case for summary judgment and the application for summary judgment should be dismissed.”

Advocate Indranil Nandi represented the Plaintiff, while Advocate Chayan Gupta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A commercial suit was filed by the plaintiff on account of the price of goods allegedly sold and delivered. Plaintiff is the seller of the goods. The first defendant is the partnership firm with its partners, namely, the second and third defendants, who are the buyers of the goods, as pleaded in the plaint. It was claimed that the plaintiff, with honest intention and a clean frame of mind, supplied the defendants’ goods on credit. As per the plaintiff, a sum of over Rs 6 Crore was due and payable by the defendants, according to the usual books of account maintained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff thus sought a decree for Rs 6,51,28,139 against the defendants. According to the defendants, the plaintiff had no real prospect of succeeding on the claim, hence the application was filed.

Reasoning

Considering that the defendants had already filed their written statement, the Bench explained that under Order XIII-A of CPC, as amended, it is not a bar to pray for a summary judgment, even if the defendant has filed its written statement. On a perusal of the statements made in the plaint, the Bench noted that the plaint case was that the plaintiff had sold and supplied articles to the defendants. The defendants received and accepted the materials, without any contemporaneous complaint or demur, but failed and neglected to pay the price of it.

The Bench was of the view that without causing an effective fact-finding enquiry through a trial, the suit filed in its present form could not be adjudicated, even to ascertain whether the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim made in the plaint.

“The procedure for summary judgment has been introduced for a speedy trial so that if the grounds for summary judgment mentioned under Rule 3 to Order XIII-A are satisfied, the defendants shall not wait for the trial which is otherwise may be a time consuming process”, it stated.

The Bench further noted, “When a plaint is instituted, the plaintiff has a vested right to have his claim adjudicated in the established procedure of law by granting the plaintiff fullest opportunity, in accordance with law. Once the plaint case, as pleaded in the plaint, is found to be triable, the trial is inevitable, unless the Court is satisfied that the plaint case is such which is otherwise barred by law.”

The Bench thus dismissed the application after finding none of the tests laid down under Rule 3 to Order XIII-A were satisfied.

Cause Title: M/s. S. G. Karel and Sons Jewellers Private Limited v. M/s Madan Lal Agarwalla Jewellers (Case No.: IA No. GA-COM/5/2025)

Appearance

Plaintiff: Advocates Indranil Nandi, Gunjan Shah, Sayak Konar, Shreya Agarwal

Defendant: Advocates Chayan Gupta, Pranay Mukherjee, Pourush Bandopadhyay

Click here to read/download Order