“Summons for Judgment”

Yes…you are right, I am talking about Summary Suits contemplated under Order XXXVII (Order 37) of Civil Procedure Code of 1908, a very powerful and expeditious remedy provided under the law for recovering money, which is routinely trapped in commercial transactions and in contracts. In Summary Suits, the Principal amount to be recovered must be certain.

As observed by Gujrat High Court- “The sheer purpose of enacting Summary Suits is to give impetus to commerce and industry by inspiring confidence in commercial population that their causes in respect of money claims of liquidate amounts (ascertained amount) would be expeditiously decided and their claims will not hang on for years blocking their money for a long period. Navinchandra Babulal Bhavsar versus Bachubhai Dhanabhai Shah AIR 1969 Gujrat 124 (128) DB.

The underlying public policy behind Order 37 is the expeditious disposal of suits of commercial nature. Bankyag B G Agarawal versus Bhagwanti Mehji 2001 (1) Bom LR 823 (DB)

The provisions of this Order 37 are enacted to ensure that the defendants doesn’t prolong the litigation by raising untenable and frivolous defences. K R Kesavan versus The South Indian Bank Ltd AIR (37) 1950 Madras 226 (228) DB

The provisions of Order 37 are enacted by Parliament to discourage litigants from coming forward with untenable pleas with the object of delaying admitted liabilities and prolonging the inevitable decree. Dena Bank versus M/s Gladstone Lyall & Co 87 Bombay Law Reporter 477 (480)


SUMMARY PROCEDURE- THE GENIUS OF SUMMARY SUITS
The procedure contemplated by Order 37 of CPC constitutes a clear departure from usual procedure. According to usual procedure, every defendant has a right to defend his case in the manner best suited to him. The Summary procedure is a powerful weapon in the hands of Court to shut out frivolous defences which are raised in commercial causes with a view to prolong the litigation. Kocharabhai ishwarbhai patel versus Gopal bhai C patel AIR 1973 Gujrat 29 (31)

The procedure is--

1. The Plaint is filed in the competent court of jurisdiction.
2. The Plaint gets numbered.
3. The Plaintiff takes out summons and arranged to get it serve upon the Defendant through Bailiff.
4. Once the Summons is served upon the defendants, he has to file his appearance in the court within 10 days from the receipt of summons.
5. If the defendant fails to file his appearance within 10 days, the Plaintiff may approach the Court to pass ex-parte decree and courts are empowered to pass ex-parte decree in such circumstances.
6. If the defendant file his appearance, than the Plaintiff has to take out Summons for Judgment and arranged to get it serve upon the defendant through Bailiff.
7. The defendant in receipt of Summons for Judgment has to move court within 10 days and file his Affidavit of Defence. In his Affidavit of Defence, he must satisfy the Court that he has substantial defence.
8. After looking at the averments made in the Affidavit of Defence, the Court may allow the Defendant to defend the case or the Court may pass the decree.


DISPUTES WHICH ARE COVERED UNDER SUMMARY SUITS

1. Summary Suits can be filed on the basis of money to be recovered on Written Contracts / agreements.
2. Summary Suits can be filed on the basis of money to be recovered under dishonoured cheques / Bills of Exchange/ Promissory Notes / Hundies.
3. Summary Suits can be filed against Guarantor, if the claim against the Principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated amount.


Widest possible interpretations may be given to the scope of written contracts. Here are some of the court rulings and observations which define the scope of Written Contracts. The words in Summary Suits, “Written contract” doesn’t requires that the contract must be signed by the parties concerned. In my view, it says- the contract must be expressed and when its existence and enforceability can be traced to conduct of the parties to the contract, although the expressed contract may not be signed by the parties concerned.


1. Invoices/Bills are written contract within the contemplation of Order 37 of CPC 1908. KIG Systel Ltd versus Fijitsu ICIM Ltd AIR 2001 Del 357.

2. As a result of acceptance of goods delivered in pursuance of the invoice, the demand for the price of goods admittedly received by the purchaser on the basis of the invoice is written contract.

3. Agreement in writing does not necessarily mean documents are formally signed by the parties. Documents exchanged by and between the parties may be construed as agreement in writing. BOI Finance versus padma Alloy Casting Bom CR 218.

4. Summary Suit can be filed on the basis of confirmed Balance / Khata and the reconciliation statement. Hindustan Wires Ltd versus Ralsons Tires Ltd 90 (2001) Delhi Law Times 777.

5. Where the liability was acknowledged in Balance sheet which was signed by partners of the firm, it was held that it amounted to a promise within the meaning of section 25(3) of the Contract Act 1872. Section 2593) validates a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation. M/s R Suresh Chandra & Co versus Vednere Chemicals Works & Ors AIR 1991 Bom 44 (47 Para 10)

6. The acknowledgment of debt in Balance Sheet amounts to acknowledgment in writing within the meaning of section 18 of the limitation Act. Rishi Pal Gupta versus S J knitting & Finishing Mills Pvt Ltd 73 (1998) Delhi Law Times 593 (598 para 14) A V Murti veresus B S Nagabasavanna 2002 (1) Supreme 517 (520 para 5)

7. Where a receipt indicates that money was borrowed, it becomes an acknowledgement. M/s Kalyani Hansraj & Ors versus Mrs Kamong A Agarwal & Ors 1990 (1) Bombay Cases Reporter 386 (389 para 10)

8. Where the suit was filed for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered, it was observed that Plaintiffs has delivered the goods to the defendants not intending to do so gratuitously and the defendants had enjoyed the benefits of them and under the provisions of section 70 of Contract Act, the Defendants are liable to pay compensation in respect of such goods to the plaintiffs. Jaishree Chemicals versus M/s Esskay Dyeing & printing Works, BHC Summons for Judgment No.23 of 1976 in Suit no. 1405 of 1975 decided on 19th April 1976.

Some Judgments explaning the scope of Summary Suit
Rule – 1. Classes of Suits – Lalchand Jain versus Gheesi AIR 1999 Raj 69

Rule 1 – Indian Bank versus Maha State Co-op Marketing Fed (1998) 5 SCC 69

Summary Suit by Bank on entries – Punjab and Sind Bank Ram Prakash Jagdish Chander (1990) 4 Del LT 497

If money of a depositor is misappropriated by the Bank, Summary Suit is maintainable. AIR 1996 Bom 386

There must be necessary averment in the Plaint to give necessary jurisdiction to court under Summary procedure. AIR 2001 AP 56.

AIR 2005 Del 369

Written Contract: BOI Finance versus Padma Alloys Casting AIR 1999 Bom 340

Summary Suit is Maintainable in following cases –

For recovery of inter-corporate loan on the basis of receipt and agreement – A 2002 Bom 481, 483, 484;

Where amount thereof is not properly quantified or is in excess of what the plaintiff is entitled to, Summary Suit is maintainable – A 2004 Bom 186; (2004) 2 CTC 641; (2004) 106 (2) Bom LR 294 (FB);

Merely because a counterclaim is filed does not render a Summary Suit not maintainable. A 2001 Bom 481, 484;

Suit for recovery of money of sale of equity shares – A 2006 (NOC) 352 (Cal);

Recovery of price of goods, interest claimed – A 2006 (NOC) 1094 (Cal)

Invoice / Bills are written contracts – A 2001 Del 357, 362;

Recovery of money paid to purchase Air Tickets – A 2006 (NOC) 1042 (Del )



Summary Suit Not Maintainable in following cases –

Claim based on Indemnity Bonds – (2002) 4 SCC 736, 742;


THE VERY CRITICAL- SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT / LEAVE TO DEFEND
Once the Summons is served upon the Defendants and he files his appearance in the Court, the Plaintiff has to move an application to the Court, i.e. called Summons for Judgment. This Summons for Judgment is then served upon the Defendants and he is called upon to make an application to the Court to grant him the leave to defend the case, within 10 days from the receipt of that Summons for Judgment.

In an Application for leave to defend, what the Court must do is to find out if whether the defendant has raised the triable issues and whether the defence is not sham and illusory and whether the defendant has raised such issues, which if proved at the trial, will result in the dismissal of the plaintiff's Suit. If it is so, the defendant is entitled to leave to defend.
N Prabhakaran versus Manager CITIBANK N A Chennai (2001) 3 MLJ 540 (542- para 5)

The jurisdiction to grant leave or refuse the same is to be exercised on the basis of the affidavit filed by the defendant. That alone at that stage is the relevant document and the inquiry of the court is to be confined to the averments made in the affidavit by the defendant. At the hearing of Summons for Judgment it is not open to the plaintiff to request the Court to look into any evidence. Adverse inference cannot be drawn against the defendant if documents are not produced in support of statements made in the Application for leave to defend. Raghavaveera Sons versus Mrs Padmavati AIR 1978 Madras 81 (85, 86 & 87) (Paras 12 & 13)

If there is a triable issue in the sense that there is a fair dispute to be tried as to the meaning of a document on which the claim is based or uncertainty as to the amount actually due or where the alleged acts are of such a nature as to entitle the defendant to interrogate the plaintiff or to cross examine his witnesses, leave to defend should not be denied. Rajduggal versus Rameshkumar Bansal 1991 sup (1) SCC 191.

In Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd versus M/s Sirohya Enterprises AIR 1992 Bombay 60 (61 & 62) it was held that in order to obtain unconditional leave to defend, it is not sufficient to raise triable issues, but he should satisfy the court that he has a substantial defence.

In a case the Court observed that the defence of the defendant bank was patently dishonest and so unreasonable that it cannot reasonable be expected to succeed. Leaver to defend refused. R K Agencies Ltd versus Central Bank of India AIR 1992 Calcutta 193 (198, 199, Paras 24, 25 & 29)






TEST TO DETERMINE FOR GRANTING LEAVE TO DEFEND

Powers conferred upon court by Order XXXVII (Order 37) is a sophisticated and delicate instrument and the same must be handled with great care and caution. In reality, it may be sometime, extremely difficult for courts to identify “frivolous defences”, Sham & illusory defences” “substantial defence, unreasonable or dishonest defence”, so as to decide whether leave to defend the Suit should be granted or refused to the Defendant.

Therefore, I here produce some simple cases wherein the Courts granted or refused leave to defend. It is necessary to understand the principles on which the court may identify whether a defence raised by the Defendant is frivolous or illusory or if it may be genuine.

In all the cases listed below, it may be noted that, the cases in which where the leave to defend was granted, the defendant has placed such facts before court, that if proved, will dislodge / washout the case of the Plaintiff.

ILLUSTRATIONS FOR GUIDANCE OF THE COURT

1. In a Case before the Hon'ble Delhi high Court, a Summary Suit was filed on the basis of dishonoured cheque of Rs.27,000/- alleged to have been issued in payment of some computer hardware and software sold by Plaintiff and where the Defendant alleged that he has issued a post dated cheque on the assurance from the Plaintiff that the said cheque will be deposited after the delivery of the said hardware and software. The Cheque was however came to be deposited without the said supply of computer hardware and softwares. It was held that the plea raised by the defendant raises a triable issue inasmuch as the material on record it cannot be said that the defence of the Defendant is malafide or vexatious and is not bonafide. The Defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend. International Computers Consultants versus Home Computer Services (P) Ltd 68 (1997) Delhi Law Times 407 (413 Paras 23 & 24) (DB)

2. Where the defendant applied for setting aside ex parte decree in summary suit based on dishonoured cheque on the ground that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts to the effect that the plaintiff had not disclosed his complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the plaint and that plaintiff had received a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation out of fine imposed on the defendant in the said criminal complaint, it was held that" the suppression of the material facts has to be such which would materially affect the decision of case. The pendency of criminal complaint could have no bearing on the merits of the claim of the plaintiff in the summary suit. The law permits the plaintiff to take out both civil and criminal proceedings. Both proceedings can be continued simultaneously. Both remedies are independent of each other. The Court declined to set aside the ex parte decree. Vijay Kumar versus Govind Bhai 1999 (4) LJ 14 (para 5)


3. In cases where the defendant raises a prima facie case of fraud, including details as contemplated in the CPC, the Court ought to act on that and grant him leave to defend without imposing any condition that he should pay money into the Court. (1932) 2 KB 353 (358 & 359)

4. Where the Defendant describes the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs as forged documents, the matter requires a trial in view of the nature of defence. Amarjeet Singh versus Mrs.Savitri Devi Bhalla 70 (1997) Delhi Law Times 655 (Paras 4 & 7)

5. In Jivaram Ramchand Fegade Group versus T Udha Ram Fruit Co and Ors, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court observed that where the Defendant alleged forgery and fabrication of documents by the Plaintiffs, it would be too much to say that the defendant must produce a surety before they can defend the Suit. 29 (1986) Delhi Law Times 305 (para 4)

6. Where the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff did not act in accordance with the terms of the agreement and therefore the defendant has stopped payment of cheques and stated that defendant has already filed suit for Specific performance of agreement. It was held that the defence raised triable issues and defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend. Radhey Shyam & Ors versus Jaibir Singh 67 (1997) Delhi Law Times 875 (877)

7. Leave to defend was refused where the defendant in various letters admitted the correctness of the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Corporate Voice Pvt Ltd versus Union Leather India Ltd 60 (1995) Delhi Law Times321 (323 para 8).

8. If tenor of defences raised by the defendants blows hot and cold and is self contradictory, he forfeits his right to defend. Vinod Kumar versus Keshav Anand 2002 AIHC 1621 (1624 Para 12)

9. In a case it was held that a claim for unliquidated (unascertained) damages does not gives rise to a debt until the liability is adjudicated. KSL & Industries Ltd versus Nath Seeds 2001 (4) All MR 134 (137 Para 6)

10. Where the defendant alleged that two cheques relied upon by the plaintiff were stolen cheques and the defendants never borrowed any money and never issued any cheque to the plaintiff and one of the two cheques relied upon by the plaintiff bears signature of the partner of the defendant who had expired much prior to date mentioned on the cheque, it was held that the defence taken by the defendants 1 to 3 could not be said to be false or frivolous on the face of it did raise triable issues. Unconditional leave to defend was granted in respect of one cheque and conditionally leave to defend was granted in respect of another cheque. Dhaliwal Trading Agency versus Varindar Singh 2002 (1) Bank J 205 (209 para 8)

11. Where a summary suit was filed to recover the amount due on credit card facility and where the trial court rejected application for leave to defend and passed decree for Rs. 2,22,644.92 by treating the computerised bank statement as conclusive proof through the said statement was neither a certified copy of the entries contained in bank's books nor it carried a certificate as contemplated under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act and where the defendant contended that only Rs. 29,906.00 was payable by him and placed a statement of account on record to show that Rs. 1,10,0007- was paid by him to liquidate liability, it was held that the defendant had made a point and it appeared that his approach was fair. Leave to defend was granted on condition of the defendant's depositing Rs. 50,000/-. Bipin Narain Karn versus Bank Of Baroda 89 (2001) Delhi Law Times 763.

12. Where summary suit was filed on the basis of dishonoured cheque for Rs. 5 crores and written contract containing terms of inter corporate deposit and where the defendants had handed over shares of listed company as collateral security with right to plaintiff to dispose off the said shares in case of default in repayment and where the defendants contended that the defendants were entitled to claim set off and counter claim as the plaintiff should have sold the shares when the defendants committed default as the shares would have fetched more than Rs. 10 crores at that time and that though the plaintiffs had decided to give up the security, the shares were not physically handed over to the defendants, it was held that the defendants had raised substantial defence and triable issues but in view of clear cut admission and disputed facts, leave to defend was granted on the defendants depositing a sum of Rs. 5 crores. Leela Capital Finance Ltd Modiluft Ltd 2001 (2) Bom C R 110 (115 Paras 12 & 13)

13. In State Industrial & Investment Corp of Maharashtra ltd versus Hargovind Vithaldas & Ors, the Court observed that where the defend to leave was granted conditionally, it need not necessarily be an order of deposit as such. Instead of deposit, there could be various other items such as time bound schedue for the hearing of the suit, or an order of restraint on the disposal of defendant's property or an order to furnish any surety etc. 1990 Mah LJ 74.


14. Where the price of the goods were payable on the basis of “Cash on Delivery” and where the defendant accepted the delivery of the goods without any reservation and the defendant has dealt with the goods after taking delivery, it was held that trial court was justified in refusing leave to defend. MMTC Ltd versus Dimple Overseas Ltd AIR 2001 Delhi 427


15. Where in a suit on promissory note the defendant admitted his signature on promissory note but alleged that he had executed blank promissory note in favour of one broker who did not return the said promissory note after the defendant cleared his liability and where he alleged that he had never seen the plaintiff and never borrowed any money from plaintiff and where the trial Court refused to grant leave to defend the suit, it was held that the trial Court was justified in refusing the leave to defend the suit as the defendant had not taken any such plea in first instance which he could have very easily done by replying the registered notice. S Anand versus S Aruna 2000 AIHC 4372


16. Where the defendant admitted execution of cheque but pleaded that it was only given as collateral security for the price of goods which the plaintiff supplied to the defendants and contended that these goods were paid for by cash payments made from time to time and by other cheques and set out the exact dates on which according to the defendants the payment had been made and gave numbers of cheques, the Supreme Court held that the facts given in the affidavit were clear and precise. The Supreme Court found fault with the trial Judge's observation to the effect that "In the absence of those documents, the defence of the defendants seems to be vague consisting of indefinite assertions. The Supreme Court held that the stage of proof can only come after the defendant has been allowed to enter an appearance and defend the suit and that the nature of the defence has to be determined at the time when the affidavit is put in. At that stage all that the Court has to determine is whether "if the facts alleged by the defendant are duly proved" they will afford a good, or even a plausible, answer to the plaintiff's claim. Once the Court is satisfied about that, leave cannot be withheld and no question about imposing conditions can arise; and once leave is granted, the normal procedure of a suit, so far as evidence and proof go.


17. In M/s. Aganall Traders Ltd. v. Shyarn Ahuja, the suit was filed on the basis of dishonoured cheque and promissory note and written agreement. In leave to defend application the defendant inter alia pleaded that a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was withdrawn from bank and paid in cash to the plaintiff for which no receipt was issued by the plaintiff. It was held that the defence taken by the defendant by no stretch of imagination can be said to be fair, bona fides or reasonable and that the defence was totally frivolous, false, illusory or sham or practically a moonshine. Leave to defend was refused and the decree was passed against the defendant. AIR 1999 Delhi 369 (371)

18. Where the summary suit was filed for the recovery of hotel charges amounting to Rs. 22,02,555.87 and where the defendant did not dispute her stay in the hotel, the invoice amount, the legal notice and her reply to the notice wherein she admitted her liability and where the defendant inter alia alleged in the application for leave to defend that the admission of liability was made under duress and that a third party was liable to make payment of hotel charges in respect of the defendant's stay in the said hotel, it was held that it was a case of setting up a defence which was illusory or sham or practically a moonshine and hence the defendant was not entitled for leave to defend. Indian Hotels Co Ltd versus Mrs V P Singh 59 (1995) Delhi Law Times 301 (304 & 306, Paras 5, 6 & 9)


19. Extraneous Controversies: Here the principal filed suit under Order XXXVII of C.P.C. on the basis of hundis executed by his agent and where the agent claimed commission alleged to be due on sale of goods, it was held that the agent was not entitled to permission to defend the suit on the ground of alleged claim of commission as the two claims constituted different causes of action. The Court held that extraneous controversies and different causes of action cannot justify enlargement of scope and purpose of summary action brought under Order XXXVII of C.P.C. M/s Brame Suri Pvt Ltd Suri Smith Chemicals & Asbestos Pvt Ltd 19 (1981) Delhi Law Times (SN) 12


Therefore, the test to determine whether Defendant deserves a leave to defend the case is- whether the nature of defence raised by Defendant is such which challenges the very issue, on which the Plaintiff has founded his case.


Some Judgments on Appeal filed in Summons for Judgment:
Madanlal versus Kedarnath AIR 1930 Bom 364
Ramanlal versus Chunilal AIR 1932 Bom 163
V S Saini versus DCM Ltd AIR 2004 Del 219
Simruthmull versus Jagraj AIR 1954 Mad 334
A S Chettiar firm versus V T Veerappa AIR 1935 Rang 245
Banwarilal versus Sohanlal (1955) 1 ILR Cal 299
Hiralal versus Salilkumar AIR 1973 Cal 320
Mohammadunissa versus Fayaz Ali 1958 Punj 437
D Shanlal versus Bank of Maha AIR 1989 Bom 150 (DB)


It deserves mention here the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 : (AIR 1977 SC 2421):
"We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints....... if on a meaningful -- not formal -- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11. C. P. C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Ch. XI) and must be triggered against them.

Lawyers and litigants known to blatantly misrepresent facts, and get away with impunity, and this results in delays. Section 193, IPC (punishment for perjury and fabrication of false evidence) provides for both imprisonment and fine, and yet, is seldom invoked. most people still get away with inconsistent statements and obvious lies in court, without any consequence at all.


Therefore, can defendant be prevented from making frivolous, Sham, illusory, unreasonable or dishonest defences? The answer is positively yes. I will take the aid of Indian Penal Code 1860.

Whoever tries to manipulate the process of Court, commits the offence of--

1. Section 172 of Indian Penal Code declares that when a Public Servant who is authorized to issue, issues a legal Summon or Notice or Order, against a person and that person absconds or avoids receiving that legal Summon or Notice or Order, commits offence under this section. Primary meaning of the word “absconds” is to hide and when a person is hiding from his place of residence, he is said to be absconding. A Judge is a Public Servant within the meaning of section 21 of Indian Penal Code.
The punishment: for this offence is imprisonment which may extend to one month to six month, or may be with Fine ranging from Rs.500 to Rs.1000 or may be punished both with imprisonment & fine.
Case Law: A person may hide even in his place of residence or away from it and in either case he would be absconding, when he hides himself. K T M S Abdul Kader versus Union Of India 1977 CrLJ 1708.

2. Section 174 of Indian Penal Code declares that When a Public Servant who is authorized to issue, issues a legal Summon or Notice, or Order or Proclamation, to call upon a person to attend in person or through agent, at a particular place and at particular date, and the person in receipt of that legal Summon or Notice, or Order or Proclamation, intentionally / deliberately omits to attend, in person or through agent, that place on that date, commits offence under this section.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment which may extend to one month to six month, or punishment may be with Fine ranging from Rs.500 to Rs.1000 or may be punished both with imprisonment & fine.


3. Section 181 of Indian Penal Code declares that- when a person, who is under legal obligation, knowingly make any statement, on Oath, or by affirmation, before a Public Servant, statement which he knew that it is false or statement which he believes that it is not true, and when he is bound to state the truth, commits the offence under this section.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment which may extend to three years, and will also be fined.

4. Section 191 of Indian Penal Code declares that when a person, who is under legal obligation, either on oath or under any provision of law, to state the truth, to declare upon any subject, knowingly makes false statement, the statement which he believes that it is false or he believes that it is not true, commits the offence under this section.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment which may extend to Seven years, and will also be fined.
Case Law: Offences relating to making false statement in the sworn Affidavits comes within the purview of this section.
Kori Gope versus Manmohan Das, AIR 1928 Pat 161 : 29 CrLJ 111 : 106 IC 703
Ranjit Singh versus State of PEPSU, AIR 1959 SC 843 : 1959 CrLJ 1124
Written statements and applications: A person filing a written statement is bound by law to state the truth and if he makes a statement which is false to his knowledge or belief, or which he believes not to be true, he is guilty of this offence. Mehrban Singh (1884) 6 All 626, Padam Singh, (1930) 52 All 856.

5. Section 196 of Indian Penal Code declares that When a person give or attempt to give any evidence as true or genuine evidence, knowing that the evidence he is giving is false or fabricated, to obstruct in the course of justice, commits the offence under this section.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment which may extend to Seven years, and will also be fined.

6. Section 199 of Indian Penal Code declares that when a person, voluntarily makes a declaration to a Court or to any public Servant, who are bound to take such declaration as evidence, and the person knowingly makes false statement in such declaration, the statement which he believed it to be false or he believed it to be not true. Also, the false statement so made must touch a point material to the object of such declaration, commits the offence under this section.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment which may extend to Seven years, and will also be fined.
Case Law: False Affidavit: M S Jaggi 1983 CrLJ 1527 (Ori)
Deputy GM Inter State Bus Terminal versus Smt Sudarshan Kumari, 1997 CrLJ 1931 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 1902 : 1997 (3) SCC 496 : Gadhi versus Krishnaraja, 2000 CrLJ 1590 (Mad)
Baddu Khan versus Emperor, AIR 1928 All 182 : 29 CrLJ 336


The Plaintiff may request the Court that Defendant should give an express undertaking to the Court that every averment made in the Affidavit of Defence is true and correct, and if it is found during the course of proceedings that the averments made in the Affidavit of Defence are false, the Defendant will be subject to offence of perjury and other offences as contemplated in the Indian Penal Code 1860. The Plaintiff, in order to inspire the confidence of the Court, should also give similar undertaking to the Court.


REASONED ORDER
In Sudeshkumar B. Dhawan v. J.S. Sood & ors. the High Court refused to interfere with the impugned order of conditional leave to defend stating that the District Judge had given cogent reasons and the discretion was not exercised arbitrarily. pg 203 of book

Reasoned Order
Waman Vasudeo versus Pratapmal Dipaji – AIR 1960 Bom 520

Therefore, if a Summary Suit (case) is filed on 1st January 2011 and Summons were take out and say served on the defendant on 10th January 2011, the Defendant has to file his appearance by 20th January 2011. If he files, then, Summons for Judgment are taken and served. If this Summons for Judgment is served upon, say on 31st January, then, the Defendant has to file his Affidavit of Defence within 10th February. On the date of hearing on 10th February, if the Court finds that the Defendant has no substantial defence, then, the Court will pass the decree.

Thus, a Summary Suit filed on 1st January 2011 may be decreed within 45 days from the date of filing.

***** M/s Sunil Enterprises versus SBI Commercial & International bank Ltd.

Sandeep Jalan
Advocate
Mumbai.