M/S Sai Sadguru Computer Technology Services LLP vs. Deputy Commissioner

Held

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge. The Court held that the trial judge failed to consider the admission made by the defendants in their written statement, wherein they categorically admitted liability to pay a sum of Rs.20,42,581/-. The Court found that this admission was germane to the application filed under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC. The Court reasoned that the provision of Order 39 Rule 10 CPC empowers the court to order deposit of money where a party admits that it belongs or is due to another party. Therefore, the trial court's dismissal of the application was erroneous. The Court directed the defendants/respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.20,42,581/- to the suit account within ten weeks, and the appellant would be entitled to withdraw the same. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The appellant, M/s Sai Sadguru Computer Technology Services Llp, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.73,32,365/- based on a works contract. The principal amount claimed was Rs.45,92,689/-. The defendants filed a written statement admitting liability to pay Rs.20,42,581/- for the work performed between 01.09.2016 and 15.03.2017. The appellant then filed an interlocutory application (I.A.No.984 of 2022) under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC seeking a direction for the respondents to deposit the principal amount of Rs.45,92,689/-. The Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, dismissed this application by an order dated 24.07.2023. The appellant preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against this dismissal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the learned Judge dismissing the application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC is sustainable and tenable? 2. Whether the said order warrants any interference by the High Court under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC? Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the impugned order was erroneous, contrary to law, and opposed to the spirit of Order 39 Rule 10 CPC. They contended that the trial court failed to properly consider the material on record and overlooked the admission made by the defendants in their written statement regarding their liability to pay Rs.20,42,581/-. Contentions of the Respondent: The learned Government Pleader for the respondents strenuously contended that the order passed by the learned Judge was free from any infirmity or error. They argued that the reasons assigned by the learned Judge were cogent and convincing, and therefore, the order was not amenable to correction under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC.