HC upholds Rs 1.50 lakh recovery decree, says litigant cannot benefit from own default

14/07/2026

JAMMU, Jul 13: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld a decree directing recovery of Rs 1.50 lakh, observing that a litigant cannot be permitted to benefit from his own default in complying with a court's directions.
Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed a Civil First Appeal and affirmed the judgment dated July 25, 2011, passed by the District Judge, Budgam, decreeing a summary suit filed by Abdul Gani Bhat against Abdul Gani Ganie and another under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
According to the case record, the dispute arose out of a fruit business transaction during the 2004-05 season. The plaintiff claimed to have paid Rs 1.50 lakh to the first appellant for the supply of fruits. A notarised agreement and a demand promissory note (Hundi) were executed, while the second appellant stood as guarantor in the event of non-supply of the fruit.
After the alleged failure to supply the fruit or refund the amount, the plaintiff instituted a summary suit for recovery. The appellants sought leave to defend and later moved an application seeking amendment of their pleadings.
The trial court allowed the amendment and directed the appellants to file an amended application within 15 days. However, they failed to do so within the stipulated period. Holding that the claim was based on a written agreement and a Hundi, the trial court decreed the suit.
Before the High Court, the appellants contended that they could not pursue the amended application due to a medical emergency and alleged procedural irregularities in the conduct of the summary suit. Advocate Saqib Amin Parray appeared for the appellants, while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
Rejecting the appeal, Justice Azeem observed that the challenge was founded on vague grounds and did not specify any substantive violation of the provisions governing summary suits under Order XXXVII CPC.
The Court held that once permission to amend a pleading is granted and a party is directed to file an amended version, the earlier pleading ceases to have legal effect for adjudication. Allowing reliance on the unamended pleading would defeat the purpose of permitting the amendment, it observed.
The High Court also noted that certain statements made in the memorandum of appeal regarding grant of leave to defend and filing of the written statement were factually incorrect, observing that suppression and misrepresentation of material facts further weakened the appellants' case.
Holding that there was no procedural illegality, perversity or violation of Order XXXVII CPC in the trial court's decision, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the recovery decree passed by the District Judge, Budgam. No order as to costs was made.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty