Naresh Bhutani And Anr vs M/S. A.G.Chit Fund And Finance Co

dated 27th of August, 2001 passed by the High Court of Delhi at

New Delhi in CR No.1095 of 2000 and CM Nos. 2736 & 2828 of

2000 by which the High Court had affirmed the order of the

Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi dated 17th of February, 1998 by

which the Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi had declined to grant

leave to defend to the appellant and decreed the suit of the

respondent against him under Order 37 of the Code of Civil

Procedure and also directed the appellant to pay a sum of

Rs.69,225/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 17th of

December, 1993 till the date of realisation and the cost of the

suit.

2

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

examined the impugned order of the High Court as well as the

order of the Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi. Before the

Commercial Civil Judge and also before the High Court,the only

question that was raised by the appellant was that since the

respondent which is a Chit Fund Company was not registered

under the Madras Chit Funds, the suit filed by the respondent

under Order 37 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not

maintainable.The High Court as well as the Commercial Civil

Judge, Delhi, in our view, have rightly pointed out that even if

the respondent was not registered,it cannot take out the suit

from the purview of Order 37 Rule 1 of the CPC. Apart from that

the allegations of non registration was denied by the

respondent and in fact they asserted that the chit fund was duly

registered. Since the Commercial Civil Judge and the High

Court concurrently held that the question that was raised for

permitting the appellant to defend the suit can not be a ground

for which leave can be granted to the appellant. Before us also,

the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has failed to 3

satisfy that the findings of the courts below were perverse or

arbitrary.

That being the position, we are not inclined to interfere

with the orders passed by the courts below and accordingly the

appeal is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants

submits, on instruction, that the rate of interest granted by the

courts below was 18% and prays that the interest rate be

reduced. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

present case, we modify the order of the courts below only to

the extent that the rate of interest should be 12% instead of

18%. Subject to this modification, the appeal stands dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

...........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

............................J. [Aftab Alam]

New Delhi; ..............................J. September 15, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]