Executive Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Grow Well Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., 2025
The decision protects the integrity of summary procedure by ensuring that defendants cannot bypass the requirement to obtain leave to defend, which would otherwise render the procedural safeguards toothless.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
2 October 2025
Judges
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
In 2020, the plaintiff (Executive Trading Company) filed a commercial summary suit before the Bombay High Court, seeking recovery of ₹2.15 crore with 24% interest from the defendant (Grow Well Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.).
-
The defendant did not apply for leave to defend (as required under Order XXXVII) and instead filed an application for dismissal of the suit, invoking Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
-
The matter was referred to pre-institution mediation, which failed. The plaintiff then amended its plaint, and the High Court—treating the suit like a regular civil suit—directed the defendant to file a reply to the summons for judgment, without seeking leave.
-
The plaintiff challenged this direction before the Supreme Court, arguing that it violated the special procedure under Order XXXVII CPC.
Issues
-
Can a defendant file a reply or defence in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC without seeking leave of the court?
-
Does the High Court’s direction to allow a defence without leave defeat the object of Order XXXVII?
-
How does the requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act interact with the procedural mandate under Order XXXVII?
-
Is there any discretion available to the court in allowing late applications for leave to defend in summary suits?
Held
-
A reply or defence filed without leave of the court in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC is not permissible.
-
The summary procedure cannot be diluted, as it is a special mechanism to ensure speedy resolution where the defendant lacks a substantial defence.
-
The appeal was allowed, but with the clarification that this decision would not foreclose the procedural rights available to the defendant under the summons already issued.
-
The observations of the Supreme Court shall not prejudice either party's case in future proceedings.
Analysis
-
This judgment is a strong reaffirmation of procedural discipline under Order XXXVII CPC. The court highlighted that summary suits are a special category of civil litigation designed to prevent delay where liability is presumed to be clear.
-
The decision protects the integrity of summary procedure by ensuring that defendants cannot bypass the requirement to obtain leave to defend, which would otherwise render the procedural safeguards toothless.
-
The judicial clarification on procedural timelines and court discretion for condoning delay serves as an important guidepost for trial courts dealing with commercial summary suits.
-
Importantly, the judgment also balances fairness by permitting courts to condone delays when sufficient cause is shown, upholding the principle of natural justice.