Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 460
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4120 OF 2024
ANISH M RAWTHER @
ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHER …. APPELLANT
VERSUS
HAFEEZ UR RAHMAN & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant
challenging the Order passed by the High Court of Karnataka
st
on 21 March 2022 in Writ Petition No. 10975 of 2020
(GM-CPC) whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition and
th
set aside the Order dated 07 March 2020 passed by the Trial
Court in Com. OS No. 1026 of 2018 and further directed the
th
Trial Court to accept the memo dated 14 November 2019
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2024.06.14
15:28:05 IST
Reason:
which was submitted by the respondents/plaintiffs and pass
appropriate orders accordingly.
2
2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of this Civil Appeal
are that the respondents/plaintiffs preferred a suit under Order
XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth ‘CPC’)
against the appellants/defendants for recovery of Rs.
1,04,16,576/- with interest. The appellants/defendants entered
appearance and filed application seeking leave to defend which
th
was allowed by the Trial Court on 19 June 2019 with a
direction to the appellants/defendants to deposit 50% of the
suit claim. The said order was challenged before the High Court
th
in Writ Petition No. 28349 of 2019 which was dismissed on 08
August 2019 against which an SLP (C) No. 20626 of 2019 was
preferred by the appellants/defendants which came to be
th
dismissed on 06 September 2019, by passing the following
order:-
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the High Court.
The special leave petition, is accordingly, dismissed.
However, it is open for the petitioners to approach the
High Court within four weeks from today for variation of
the order satisfying the High Court that he can provide
adequate security in terms of the orders of the High
Court.”
3
3. Despite the above order passed by this Court, the
appellants/defendants did not approach the High Court for
variation of the order as permitted by this Court.
4. When the matter stood thus, the respondent/plaintiff filed
th
memo dated 14 November 2019, requesting the Trial Court to
decree the suit in terms of Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) of the
CPC. The Trial Court after considering the material on record,
including the objections by the appellant/defendant rejected
th
the memo vide order dated 07 March 2020. This order was
assailed by the respondent/plaintiff before the High Court which
has been allowed under the impugned order simultaneously
directing the Trial Court to accept the memo and pass
appropriate orders accordingly.
5. The appellants/defendants have argued that in view of
Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(henceforth ‘IBC’), the moratorium has become operational,
therefore, the suit cannot proceed. This argument was not
accepted by the High Court and under the impugned order, the
Trial Court was directed to accept the memo and pass
4
appropriate orders. It is important to notice that this Court has
st
passed an order on 01 December 2023 staying the impugned
order, however, much prior to the interim order of this Court,
th
the suit itself was decided finally by passing a decree on 20
April 2023. It is not brought to our notice that the said decree
has been challenged any further by the defendants. Thus, for
the present, the suit is not pending, therefore, the present
appeal which arises out of an interim order passed by the Trial
Court during pendency of the suit, has been rendered
infructuous.
6. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.
………………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
.......……………………………….J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
JUNE 14, 2024.