Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: O. XXXVII , R. 3 , O. VII R. 10

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O. XXXVII & R. 3 & O. VII R. 10--Suit for Recovery--Cheques--Summary suit--Leave to defend--Allowed--Compromise effected--Liability admitted--Instalments--Suit consigned--Conditional--restoration clause--Default in payment--Restoration allowed--Application filed--Return of plaint application dismissed--Maintainability affirmed--Distinction between part-payment made prior to institution of suit and payment made pursuant to a compromise recorded before Court during pendency of proceedings was significant--Former might attract implications of Section 56 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereas latter constituted performance of a settlement acknowledging original liability and did not alter foundational basis of suit--In present case, petitioners not only admitted their liability before learned trial Court but also secured benefit of conditional consigning of suit on strength of their undertaking to liquidate liability through installments--Having failed to honour their commitment, they could not be permitted to challenge jurisdiction of same Court by invoking technical objections--It is by now well settled that a statement or undertaking given before a Court of law carried binding force and created an estoppel against maker thereof--Furthermore, scope of Order VII Rule 10, C.P.C. was confined to cases where Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain plaint--Provision could not be pressed into service where Court otherwise possessed jurisdiction and objection was raised merely to defeat proceedings--In present case, suit was competently instituted under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. on basis of cheques, which fell squarely within definition of negotiable instruments--Subsequent compromise and partial payment made in pursuance thereof did not divest trial Court of its jurisdiction--Trial Court had, therefore, rightly concluded that precedents relied upon by petitioners were not applicable to peculiar facts of present case and that payment made pursuant to compromise did not change nature of summary suit so as to require return of plaint--It is settled law that revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section…