Chennai, 31 January 2025: The Hon’ble Madras High Court, presided over by Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, dismissed Review Application No. 319 of 2024 filed by M/s. Designer Dresses (P) Ltd. against G.R. Natarajan & Co. The court upheld its earlier decision rejecting the applicant’s leave to defend in a summary suit, reinforcing the principle that frivolous attempts to delay judicial proceedings will not be entertained.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a summary suit filed by G.R. Natarajan & Co. under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for recovery of rent arrears. The respondent had leased a property to the applicant, and fair rent was determined under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The fair rent was affirmed by the Supreme Court of India, yet the applicant had failed to comply with the payment.
The applicant's Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 1771 of 2024) challenging the rejection of its leave to defend was previously dismissed by the High Court on 29 July 2024. Subsequently, the applicant sought a review of that decision, arguing that the court had failed to consider relevant judgments and that its order was per incuriam (rendered in ignorance of binding legal precedents).
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar dismissed the review petition, emphasizing that:
-
No Triable Issues: Since the fair rent had already been fixed and confirmed by the Supreme Court, there was no need for further deliberations. The amount due was a fixed sum, making it a valid subject for a summary suit under Order 37 CPC.
-
Abuse of Judicial Process: The applicant had deliberately delayed payments and sought to prolong litigation despite repeated judicial affirmations of the respondent’s claim. The court noted that the fair rent had been determined as early as 2005, with final confirmation by the Supreme Court in 2021, yet the applicant had failed to vacate the premises or clear the dues.
-
Review Not Maintainable: The court clarified that a review under Order 47 CPC is permissible only when there is an apparent material error on record. In this case, the applicant merely sought a re-argument of the previously decided matter, which is not a valid ground for review.
-
Cost Imposed: Given the deliberate delay tactics employed by the applicant, the court imposed a cost of ₹5,000, payable to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within four weeks.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling reaffirms that summary suits are meant for quick recovery of liquidated amounts and that defendants cannot abuse procedural provisions to delay legitimate claims. It also underscores the finality of Supreme Court decisions, preventing unnecessary re-litigation of settled matters.
The case serves as a cautionary precedent for tenants attempting to evade rental obligations through prolonged litigation and highlights the High Court's firm stance against delaying tactics in commercial disputes.
Comments
Post a Comment