The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a Civil First Appeal, establishing that depositing a remaining sum after a decree is issued cannot be treated as retrospective compliance. This ruling confirms that such a delayed payment does not restore the right of defendants to contest a case under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The bench found no illegality in the trial court's judgment, which had ruled in favor of the respondents.
The legal battle began when private respondents filed a summary suit against the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Directorate of Estates. The plaintiffs alleged they performed electrical works at the MLA Hostel in Srinagar, worth Rs. 37.82 lacs, funded by the Legislative Assembly Secretariat. They sought recovery of Rs. 57.32 lacs for these services. The Estates Department initially sought leave to defend, and the trial court granted this permission subject to the condition that the appellants deposit Rs. 37.82 lacs and file a written statement within thirty days.
According to LiveLaw, the appellants deposited Rs. 19.01 lacs on March 26, 2023, but failed to deposit the remaining Rs. 18.81 lacs within the mandated timeframe. The trial court decreed the suit on August 12, 2023, for Rs. 57.23 lacs plus interest and costs. The appellants later deposited the balance amount on July 25, 2025, arguing that a substantial portion had already been paid and that peculiar circumstances caused the delay. However, the High Court observed that the suit was decided and decreed in favor of the respondents on August 12, 2023, well before the final balance was deposited in 2025.
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, who heard the appeal, noted that the appellants failed to provide a cogent explanation for the delay. The court held that the failure to comply with the condition imposed while granting leave to defend justified the trial court in decreeing the suit. The judgment reinforces that conditional leave to defend in summary suits requires strict adherence to timelines, and post-decree payments cannot undo the legal consequences of non-compliance. The Civil First Appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the lower court's order.