Logo

Failure to File Fresh Leave to Defend Plea After Amendment Bars Challenge to Recovery Decree: J&K High Court

Shivam
Add Court Book as a preferred source on Google

The J&K High Court upheld a ₹1.5 lakh recovery decree, ruling that parties who fail to comply with court directions cannot later claim procedural prejudice in summary civil proceedings. - Abdul Gani Ganie & Another v. Abdul Gani Bhat

Failure to File Fresh Leave to Defend Plea After Amendment Bars Challenge to Recovery Decree: J&K High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a civil first appeal challenging a trial court's decree directing repayment of ₹1.5 lakh in a commercial dispute arising out of a fruit supply agreement. The Court held that the appellants could not seek relief after failing to file a fresh application for leave to defend despite being granted an opportunity by the trial court.

Background of the Case

The dispute stemmed from a 2004 transaction in which respondent Abdul Gani Bhat claimed to have paid ₹1.5 lakh to appellants Abdul Gani Ganie and another for the supply of fruits during the 2004-05 season. According to the respondent, the parties executed a notarized agreement and a Demand Promissory Note (Hundi), while the second appellant stood as guarantor for repayment if the agreed supply was not made.

After alleging breach of the agreement, the respondent filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for recovery of the amount.

Justice Shahzad Azeem noted that the appellants had been permitted to amend their application seeking leave to defend and were specifically directed to file a fresh application within the prescribed time. They failed to do so.

Court Book subscription: bare acts, legal drafts, court judgments and ad-free legal news, plans from ₹30/month

The Court observed,

"Once amendment is permitted, adjudication must proceed on the amended pleadings. Otherwise, the very object of amendment stands frustrated."

The Court also found that the memorandum of appeal contained factually incorrect statements regarding the procedural history of the case and said this amounted to suppression and misrepresentation of material facts. I

t further held that the suit was validly instituted under the summary procedure because it was founded on a written agreement and a Demand Promissory Note, satisfying the requirements of Order XXXVII CPC.

Finding no procedural illegality or perversity in the trial court's approach, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree in favour of the respondent.

It also directed that there would be no order as to costs.

Case Details

Case Title: Abdul Gani Ganie & Another v. Abdul Gani Bhat

Case Number: CFA No. 109/2011

Judge: Justice Shahzad Azeem

Decision Date: July 13, 2026

PDF
Download Judgment
Free access
Open PDF

Take CourtBook Everywhere

Access your account on the go with our mobile app.

Get it on Google PlayDownload on the App Store
Join the Court Book WhatsApp channel for latest judgments, notifications, legal news and exam updates