INDIAN BANK versus MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 187 · Decided: 05-05-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
' . 
INDIAN BANK 
v. 
MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE 
MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. 
MAYS,1998 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
A 
B 
S.10, Order XXXVJJ-Trial of Suit-Stay of-Summary suit file under C 
Order 37-Dependent seeking stay of the suit on the ground that it has 
already filed a regular suit in respect of the dispute between the parties-
Single Judge of the High Court declining to stay the summary suit holding 
that concept of trial in s.10 applies only to a regular suit and not to a 
summary suit-Division Bench of the High Court, in appeal, held that s. 10 D 
applies to summary suit also and the word 'trial' cannot be construed in a 
narrow sense but would mean entire proceedings after defendant entered his 
appearance-Held, provisions of s.10 and order 37 have to be interpreted 
harmoniously-Words 'trial of any suit' occurring in s.10 will have to be 
construed in the context of provisions of order 37-1n the context of summary 
suit wider interpretation of the word 'trial' is not called for-Judgement of E 
single Judge of High Court restored. 
Word and Phrases: 
Words 'trial of any suit' occurring in s.10 CPC-Jnterpretation of 
F 
">-· 
A suit under order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed 
by the appellant-Bank against the respondent-Federation, which had been 
granted Letter of Credit by it, for recovery of certain amount, which as 
alleged by the Bank become recoverable under the said Letter of Credit. The 
Federation appeared before the court to seek stay of the summary suit on 
the strength of s.10 of the Code, contending that prior to the filling of the G 
summary suit by the Bank, it had filed a suit against the Bank. The single 
Judge of the High Court held that the concept of trial as contained in s.10, 
CPC was applicable only to a regular/ordinary suit and not to a summary 
suit filed under order 37 CPC and, therefore, further, proceedings under the 
su111mary suit filed by the Bank were not required to be stayed. On appeal, H 
187 
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A the Division Bench held thats.IO CPC applied to the summary suit also as 
in its view the word 'trial' ins.IO could not be construed in a narrow sense, 
and would mean the entire proceedings after the defendent entered his 
appearance. It stayed the summary suit till the disposal of the suit filed by 
the Federation. Aggrieved, the Bank filed the present appeals. 
B 
It was contendent for the appellant-Bank that the Single Judge of the 
c 
High Court rightly held that s.10 CPC would not apply to the summary suits, 
otherwise the very object of making a separate provision for summary suits 
would be frustrated .. 
Allowing the appeals, this _Court 
HELD : 1.1. Considering the objects of both the provisions i.e. Section 
IO and order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, wider interpretation 
of the word 'trial' is not called for. The word 'trial' in section IO, in the 
context of a summary suit, cannot be interpreted to mean the entire 
D proceedings starting with institution of the suit by loading a plaint. 
1.2. The provisions contained in section 10 is a general provision 
applicable to all categories of cases. The provisions contained in order 37 
apply to certain classes of suits. One provides a bar against proceeding with 
the trial of a suit, the other provides for granting of quick relief. Both these 
E provisions have to be interpreted harmoniously so that the objects of both are 
not frustrated. Accordingly, the words 'trial of any suit' occurring in s.10 
will have to be construed in the context of the provisions of order 37 of the 
Codt:. The stage of determination of the matter in issue will arise in a 
summary suit only after the defendant obtains leave or the court grants him 
F leave to defend the suit The trial would really begin thereafter. This clearly 
appears to be the scheme of summary procedure as provided by Order 37 
of the Code. Therefore, the court or the judge dealing with the summary suit 
can proceed upto the stage of hearing the summons for judgement and 
passing the judgement in favour of the plaintiff if (a) the defendent has not 
applied for leave to defend or if such application has been made and refused 
G or if (b) the defendant who is permitted to defend fails to comply with the 
conditions on which leave to defend is granted. 
1.3. The word 'trial' in section 10 of the Code will have to be interpreted 
and construed keeping in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.