Calcutta High Court Clarifies Summary Judgment Under Order XIIIA CPC Requires Unimpeachable Evidence; Dismisses Application Where Triable Issues Exist

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court addressed the scope and application of summary judgment under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court emphasized that summary judgment is only warranted where the plaintiff’s case is supported by unimpeachable evidence and the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

The plaintiff sought a summary judgment against defendant no.1 for the recovery of Rs.7,85,65,690/-, alleging non-payment for goods sold and delivered under seven invoices. The plaintiff relied on invoices, e-Way bills, and asserted that the defendant had accepted and consumed the goods without protest. The plaintiff further contended that debit notes raised by defendant no.1, purporting to evidence return of goods, were fabricated, as they were issued after the defendant’s GST registration had been cancelled.

Defendant no.2, who acted as a mediator, denied any liability and clarified that it had no privity with the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 did not file a written statement within the stipulated time, resulting in the suit being marked as “undefended” against it. However, the Court noted that even in such circumstances, defendant no.1 retained a limited right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses, restricted to the plaint case.

Upon examining the materials on record, the Court observed that the existence and validity of the debit notes, and whether they constituted a genuine attempt to return the goods under the Sale of Goods Act, were triable issues. The Court held that such matters could not be adjudicated summarily without a full trial. It was further noted that the plaintiff had not produced unimpeachable evidence at this stage to conclusively disprove the debit notes.

The Court reiterated that the summary judgment mechanism under Order XIIIA CPC, introduced by the Commercial Courts Act, is designed for cases where the plaintiff’s entitlement is clear and the defendant’s defence is either non-existent or a mere afterthought. Where triable issues arise, particularly regarding the authenticity and legal effect of documents central to the dispute, the matter must proceed to trial.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment, holding that the issues raised required adjudication at trial. The suit was directed to proceed, with the scope of cross-examination by defendant no.1 limited in accordance with the absence of a written statement.

This decision underscores the Calcutta High Court’s approach to summary judgment in commercial disputes, reaffirming that the presence of genuine triable issues precludes the grant of summary relief under Order XIIIA CPC.