Case: EXECUTIVE TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED. VERSUS GROW WELL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 25 September 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti 
Citation: 2025 INSC 1157

Summary

The Supreme Court directed that no reply or defence can be allowed to come on record in a summary suit filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC without the Leave of the Court first being obtained by the defendant. The Court set aside an order of the Bombay High Court that had permitted the defendant to file a reply to the Summons for Judgment, thereby bypassing the mandatory procedure of seeking leave to defend. The Court emphasized that allowing a defence without leave effaces the distinction between an ordinary suit and a Summary Suit.

Background

The appeal arose from Commercial Summary Suit No. 19 of 2020 filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant, Executive Trading Company Private Limited, before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The suit was filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC to recover an alleged admitted and confirmed total liability of ₹2,15,54,383.50/- together with interest from the Defendant-Respondent, Grow Well Mercantile Private Limited.  

The Defendant, after entering an appearance, filed an application to dismiss the suit for non-compliance with the pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Mediation was attempted but failed. Following an amendment to the plaint and Summons for Judgment allowed by the High Court, the High Court, through the impugned order dated December 5, 2023, directed the defendant to file a reply to the Summons for Judgment.  

The Plaintiff challenged this order before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had procedurally erred by allowing a ‘reply/defence’ without the Defendant first filing an application seeking leave to file the defence as required under sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the CPC. 

Key Issues

• Whether the High Court could permit a defendant in a Summary Suit under Order XXXVII CPC to file a reply to the Summons for Judgment (a defence) without first filing an application and obtaining the Leave of the Court to defend.  
• Whether this procedural deviation goes to the root of the matter and effaces the distinction between an ordinary suit and a Summary Suit.

Supreme Court Findings

• The step ordered by the High Court, allowing a reply to the Summons for Judgment, was procedurally incorrect and unsustainable.  
• The requirement under sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the CPC is for the defendant to file an application seeking leave to file the defence.  
• Allowing a reply or defence to come on record in a summary suit without the Leave of the Court effaces the distinction maintained between a Suit normally instituted and a Summary Suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC.  
• This procedural deviation goes to the root of the matter.  
• The court has the discretion to condone any delay in applying for leave to defend if the defendant shows sufficient cause.

Cited Precedents

• The judgment is in the context of the procedural requirements mandated under Order XXXVII Rule 3 sub-Rules (1) to (7) of the CPC.
  

Important Observations

• The precise question is whether the court could have permitted filing a reply/defence without even praying for leave, setting out the available defence, etc..  
• “we are of the view that the order impugned needs to be interfered with in as much as if a reply or defence is allowed to come on record in a summary suit without the Leave of the Court then the distinction sought to be maintained between a Suit normally instituted and Summary Suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC stands effaced.”

Legal Partners’ Views

The judgment is a crucial reaffirmation of the specialized procedure governing Summary Suits. By striking down the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that the procedural safeguards under Order XXXVII, specifically the mandatory requirement to seek leave to defend, cannot be bypassed. This ruling ensures that the very objective of a Summary Suit—to achieve expeditious judgment in clear debt recovery cases—is not defeated by treating it as an ordinary civil suit.

Outcome

• The appeal stands allowed.  
• The order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the High Court was set aside.  
• The parties are left with the option to pursue remedies in accordance with the steps envisaged in Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the CPC.  
• The setting aside of the order shall not be understood as foreclosing the options available to the Defendant in the Judgment Summons already issued, and the observations made in the present order shall not prejudice the case of either party. 

Final Thoughts

This ruling reinforces the fundamental distinction between a summary suit and an ordinary civil suit, making it clear that the procedure for granting leave to defend is a mandatory prerequisite to filing a defence. It ensures that the summary nature of the procedure is maintained, preventing unwarranted delays in cases of admitted liability.

SOURCE: LiveLaw

Case: National Highway Authority of India and Anr. v. O.J Janeesh and Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 18 July 2025
Coram: Hon’ble CJI BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 819

Summary

The Supreme Court has ruled that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) cannot force commuters to pay toll fees if the highway is not maintained in a motorable condition. Upholding the Kerala High Court’s suspension of toll collection at the Paliyekkara toll plaza on NH-544, the Court affirmed that the obligation to pay toll carries with it a corresponding right to safe and unhindered roads.

Background

• The dispute arose from the Edapally–Mannuthy stretch of NH-544 in Thrissur, Kerala.
• Due to delays in road works, the highway was in severe disrepair, causing massive traffic congestion, including a 12-hour traffic jam reported in August 2025.
• Citizens challenged the levy of toll despite the poor condition of the road.
• On August 6, 2025, the Kerala High Court suspended toll collection for four weeks, holding that toll cannot be demanded when access to the highway is hindered.
• NHAI and the concessionaire appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

• Citizens’ stance: Paying toll for unsafe and congested roads is unfair and violates the principle of public trust.
• NHAI’s stance: Toll collection is permitted under statutory provisions regardless of temporary inconveniences.
• Concessionaire’s stance: Suspension of toll causes financial loss and affects contractual obligations.

Supreme Court Findings

1. Right to safe access:

Citizens paying toll are entitled to safe, unhindered, and regulated access to highways.

2. Poor roads = no toll:

If the NHAI or its concessionaire fails to maintain roads, toll collection cannot continue.

3. Agreement with Kerala HC:

The SC expressly endorsed the High Court’s reasoning that toll collection is tied to a reciprocal duty of providing motorable roads.

Cited Precedents

• The judgment reinforced principles of public trust doctrine and citizen rights in toll collection.
• Relied on the Kerala High Court’s earlier rulings on toll-road maintenance obligations.

Important Observations

• “The toll is really on the purse and the patience of the citizen, as also the environment.”
• “Citizens who have already paid tax should not be forced to pay further to navigate potholes, gutters, and inefficiency.”
• “Why should a person pay ₹150 if it takes 12 hours to cross a road meant to take 1 hour?” – CJI Gavai.

Legal Partners’ Views

This ruling is a strong affirmation of citizens’ rights against arbitrary toll collection. It reinforces that infrastructure contracts cannot override public trust, and the state and its agencies have a constitutional duty to maintain roads. While concessionaires’ financial concerns are genuine, they cannot override commuters’ safety and convenience.

Outcome

• NHAI’s appeal dismissed.
• Toll collection at Paliyekkara remains suspended until roads are repaired.
• Concessionaire may seek relief only after resumption of smooth traffic.

Final Thoughts

This ruling will be crucial in strengthening accountability of infrastructure authorities across India. It sets a precedent that toll collection is not a blanket right but a conditional obligation tied to road quality and safety. Citizens now have a judicially upheld right to demand good roads in return for toll payments.

SOURCE: LiveLaw

Case: Suresh Chandra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. v. Parasram & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 18 July 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 728

Summary

The Supreme Court held that in cases involving a joint and indivisible decree, failure to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased party in time leads to complete abatement of the appeal under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court explained that continuing the appeal only against the surviving parties would risk conflicting or inconsistent decrees, which is impermissible.

Background

• The original suit was filed in 1983 by Parasram seeking declaration of ownership, possession, and mesne profits of a house.
• The defendants, Suresh Chandra and Ram Babu, denied the tenancy claim and jointly asserted ownership through inheritance from their father via a 1947 partition.
• The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed it in favour of the plaintiff.
• A second appeal was filed by Suresh Chandra’s LRs and Ram Babu.
• During the pendency of the appeal, Ram Babu passed away in 2015, and his legal heirs were not substituted.
• In 2022, the High Court declared the entire second appeal abated due to this lapse.
• The LRs of Suresh Chandra appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Arguments

• The appellants argued that the appeal should not have abated in its entirety and could have proceeded against the surviving defendant.
• They contended that the rights and liabilities were severable between the two defendants.

Supreme Court Findings

1. Appeal Cannot Be Partially Continued

The Court ruled that the decree passed by the First Appellate Court was joint and inseparable, based on a common claim of ownership by both defendants. Therefore, the appeal could not proceed only against one, as it would lead to an inconsistent decree.

2. Finality of Decree Against Deceased Party

Once legal representatives of Ram Babu were not brought on record, the decree against him attained finality, and further proceedings would result in conflicting outcomes.

3. Abatement Applies to Entire Appeal

In such joint and indivisible claims, abatement in respect of one party is fatal to the entire appeal.

Cited Precedents

• Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs v. Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (Dead) by LRs, (2003) 3 SCC 272
• Other key legal principles drawn from Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC

Important Observations

• The nature of the decree (whether joint and inseverable or severable) is key to determining the effect of non-substitution of LRs.
• A joint claim based on shared ownership or right, if decreed against the defendants collectively, leads to indivisibility of the decree.
• Inconsistent decrees are those that are mutually self-destructive, where the enforcement of one negates the other.
• Courts must avoid scenarios where finality of part of a judgment compromises the fairness and enforceability of the rest.

Legal Partners’ Views

This judgment has significant implications for civil appellate practice. It reiterates the importance of promptly substituting legal heirs, particularly in joint decree matters. Litigants and lawyers alike must appreciate the procedural rigour involved in maintaining appeals. A lapse as simple as non-substitution can undo years of litigation, even if the merits favour the appellant.

Outcome

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal in its entirety, citing the risk of inconsistent and unenforceable decrees.

Final Thoughts

This ruling will be crucial for civil litigators, estate lawyers, and parties in joint ownership disputes. It reinforces the finality and integrity of joint decrees and the vital importance of procedural compliance in substitution of legal representatives. Failure to act promptly can result in complete abatement and loss of appellate remedies, regardless of the strength of the claim.

SOURCE: LiveLaw