RAJBALA vs KAUMUDI RANI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28th April, 2025 + CM(M) 411/2025 & CM APPL. 12235/2025 RAJBALA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Ms. Ring Baliyan, Advocates with petitioner in person. versus KAUMUDI RANI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Urmila, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The point raised in the present petition is a very short one. 2. Petitioner had filed a suit under Order XXXVII CPC. However, vide order dated 26.11.2024, the learned Trial Court has converted the suit into an ordinary suit, holding that the suit did not fall within the scope and ambit of Order XXXVII CPC. 3. According to plaintiff/petitioner, she had lent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to one Sh. Chanderhas Garg on 01.07.2022. Sh. Chanderhas Garg issued a pronote in this regard. Unfortunately, he died on 31.01.2023. Thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner sent legal notice to his legal heirs but since the liability under the abovesaid pronote was not cleared, a summary suit was filed. 4. Learned Trial Court has taken a view that summary suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff/petitioner is, merely, seeking recovery of amount taken by Sh. Chanderhas Garg, who is no more alive and it is not clear as to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 411/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:30.04.2025 11:11:34 who are his legal heirs and whether they had inherited any property, left by him or not. It also observed that, even otherwise, none of the alleged legal heirs was signatory to a pronote and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the issue is no longer res integra and in this regard, s