Sahayata & Sahayata

  Summary suits under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) offer a powerful tool for swift recovery of money in cases where the defendant has no real defence . This special procedure bypasses the regular, time-consuming litigation process and ensures quick relief to the plaintiff. This guide breaks down the step-by-step procedure of summary suits to help litigators, law students, and judicial aspirants master this essential aspect of civil litigation. 🧾 What Is a Summary Suit? A summary suit is a fast-track procedure applicable in specific types of claims where the right to relief is clear and undisputed , such as: ✅ Applicable Cases: Suits based on bills of exchange , hundis , or promissory notes . Suits where the plaintiff seeks only a debt or liquidated amount , arising from: Written contracts Enforceable guarantees Acknowledged debts ⚠️ Note: Summary suits are not applicable in every civil matter — the scope is limited to sp...

  Principles Governing Grant of Leave to Defend under Order XXXVII CPC Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides for a summary procedure in suits based on negotiable instruments, written contracts, or guarantees. The aim is to provide an expeditious remedy by limiting the right of the defendant to defend, unless permitted by the court. But what happens when the defendant wishes to contest the claim? That’s where the concept of “leave to defend” comes in — and the courts have laid down clear principles for when it should be granted. 📘 What Is Leave to Defend? In a summary suit under Order XXXVII, a defendant cannot file a written statement as a matter of right. Rule 3(5) of Order XXXVII mandates that a defendant must, within 10 days of service of summons , apply for leave to defend , showing that they have a substantial defence . ⚖️ Legal Framework: Provision: Order XXXVII Rule 3(5), CPC Purpose: Prevent frivolous defences and fast-track g...

The legal distinctions between Review, Appeal, and Revision   📊 Review vs. Appeal vs. Revision – Comparative Chart Parameter Review Appeal Revision Governing Provision Order XLVII CPC Section 96 CPC (First Appeal), Section 100 (Second Appeal) Section 115 CPC Scope Correction of errors apparent on the face of the record Re-hearing on facts and law Correction of jurisdictional errors only Filed Before Same Court which passed the decree/order Appellate Court (higher forum) High Court only Maintainability Allowed in limited grounds (error apparent, fraud, etc.) Against appealable decrees or final orders Only if no appeal lies, and jurisdiction is at issue Appeal Against Rejection ❌ Not appealable (Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC) ✅ Maintainable ✅ May lie in certain situations if no alternative remedy exists Effect on Original Decree If rejected – no change; if allowed – decree can be modified Decree may be affirmed, reversed, or modified Cannot modify decree; only correct procedural/juris...

Summary with key details from the Supreme Court judgment in Periyammal (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. (2025 INSC 329): Key Issue: Whether an execution petition can be amended to seek possession from parties (respondents 1 & 2) who were not vendors but were in possession, and whether objections under Section 47 CPC by such parties (claiming to be cultivating tenants) could be entertained. Facts: A suit for specific performance was filed by Ayyavoo Udayar (predecessor of appellants) against vendors Ramanujan & Jagadeesan. Respondents 1 & 2 (nephews of vendors) were impleaded as defendants to avoid obstruction as they were in possession. The suit was decreed in 1986; upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court. Execution Petition (R.E.P. No. 237/2004) was filed seeking execution of sale deed and delivery of possession. Respondents 1 & 2 objected under Section 47 CPC , claiming no notice was served and that they were cultivating...

Case Overview: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment on the distinction between ancestral and self-acquired property in the case of Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors. (2025) . The case involved a dispute over a property purchased by Defendant No.1 (C. Jayaramappa) from his brother, C. Thippeswamy, in 1989. The plaintiffs, who were the children of Defendant No.1, claimed the property as ancestral and sought partition and separate possession. The property was initially allocated to C. Thippeswamy in a family partition deed in 1986, and subsequently sold to Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 later sold it to Defendant No.2 (Angadi Chandranna) in 1993. The plaintiffs argued that the property was bought using joint family funds and thus, should be treated as ancestral. The legal battle spanned multiple courts, with the trial court favoring the plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court overturning the decision, and the High Court restoring the ...