ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHERversusHAFEEZ UR RAHMAN & ORS.

                 [2024] 6 S.C.R. 959 : 2024 INSC 460

           Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther
                                v.
                     Hafeez Ur Rahman & Ors.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 4120 of 2024)
                                14 June 2024
           [Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       High Court, if justified in directing the trial court to accept the
       respondent’s memo and pass appropriate order.

                                  Headnotes
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XXXVII – Summary
       suits – Suit u/Ord. XXXVII by respondents against the appellants
       for recovery of money – Respondent filed memo requesting
       the trial court to decree the suit in terms of Ord. XXXVII
       r. 3(6)(b) – Trial court rejected the memo – However, the High
       Court set aside the order directing the trial court to accept the
       memo submitted by the respondents and pass appropriate
       orders – Correctness:
       Held: High Court did not accept the submission of the appellants
       that in view of s. 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
       2016, the moratorium became operational, thus, the suit cannot
       proceed, and directed the trial court to accept the memo and
       pass appropriate orders – This Court stayed the impugned order,
       however, much prior to the interim order of this Court, the suit
       itself was decided finally by passing a decree – It is not brought
       to the notice that the said decree has been challenged any
       further by the appellants – Thus, for the present, the suit is not
       pending, thus, the appeal which arose out of an interim order
       passed by the trial court during pendency of the suit, is rendered
       infructuous. [Para 5]

                                  List of Acts
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
       2016.



* Author
960                                                         [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


                              List of Keywords
       Memo; Summary suits; Recovery of money; Decree the suit;
       Moratorium; Infructuous.

                             Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4120 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2022 of the High Court
       of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 10975 of 2020
                          Appearances for Parties
       U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv., Dinesh Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay
       Garg, Ishaan Tiwari, R.P. Bansal, Suresha N., Ms. Ishita Bist, Advs.
       for the Appellant.
       Pai Amit, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Nikhil Pahwa, Abhiyudaya Vats,
       Kushal Dube, Tathagata Dutta, Ms. Vanshika Dubey, Advs. for the
       Respondents.
                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                 Judgment
       Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
       This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant
       challenging the Order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on
       21st March 2022 in Writ Petition No. 10975 of 2020 (GM-CPC)
       whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the
       Order dated 07th March 2020 passed by the Trial Court in Com.
       OS No. 1026 of 2018 and further directed the Trial Court to accept
       the memo dated 14th November 2019 which was submitted by the
       respondents/plaintiffs and pass appropriate orders accordingly.
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 was allowed by the Trial Court
       on 19th June 2019 with a direction to the appellants/defendants
       to deposit 50% of the suit claim. The said order was challenged
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                          961

           Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther v.
                     Hafeez Ur Rahman & Ors.

     before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 28349 of 2019 which
     was dismissed on 08th August 2019 against which an SLP (C) No.
     20626 of 2019 was preferred by the appellants/defendants which
     came to be dismissed on 06th 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.   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 memo dated
     14th 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 the memo vide order dated 07th
     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 appropriate orders. It is important to notice that
     this Court has passed an order on 01st December 2023 staying the
     impugned order, however, much prior to the interim order of this
     Court, the suit itself was decided finally by passing a decree on 20th
     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
962                                                        [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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.


       Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain                 Result of the case:
                                                          Appeal dismissed.