ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHER versus HAFEEZ UR RAHMAN & ORS.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 959, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 959 : 2024 INSC 460
Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther 
v. 
Hafeez Ur Rahman & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4120 of 2024)
14 June 2024
[Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
High Court, if justified in directing the trial court to accept the 
respondent’s memo and pass appropriate order.
Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XXXVII – Summary  
suits – Suit u/Ord. XXXVII by respondents against the appellants 
for recovery of money – Respondent filed memo requesting 
the trial court to decree the suit in terms of Ord. XXXVII  
r. 3(6)(b) – Trial court rejected the memo – However, the High 
Court set aside the order directing the trial court to accept the 
memo submitted by the respondents and pass appropriate 
orders – Correctness:
Held: High Court did not accept the submission of the appellants 
that in view of s. 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 
2016, the moratorium became operational, thus, the suit cannot 
proceed, and directed the trial court to accept the memo and 
pass appropriate orders – This Court stayed the impugned order, 
however, much prior to the interim order of this Court, the suit 
itself was decided finally by passing a decree – It is not brought 
to the notice that the said decree has been challenged any 
further by the appellants – Thus, for the present, the suit is not 
pending, thus, the appeal which arose out of an interim order 
passed by the trial court during pendency of the
suit, is rendered 
infructuous. [Para 5]
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 
2016.
960
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Memo; Summary suits; Recovery of money; Decree the suit; 
Moratorium; Infructuous. 
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4120 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2022 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 10975 of 2020
Appearances for Parties
U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv., Dinesh Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay 
Garg, Ishaan Tiwari, R.P. Bansal, Suresha N., Ms. Ishita Bist, Advs. 
for the Appellant.
Pai Amit, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Nikhil Pahwa, Abhiyudaya Vats, 
Kushal Dube, Tathagata Dutta, Ms. Vanshika Dubey, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant 
challenging the Order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 
21st March 2022 in Writ Petition No. 10975 of 2020 (GM-CPC) 
whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the 
Order dated 07th March 2020 passed by the Trial Court in Com. 
OS No. 1026 of 2018 and further directed the Trial Court to accept 
the memo dated 14th November 2019 which was submitted by the 
respondents/plaintiffs and pass appropriate orders accordingly. 
2.	
The brief facts, necessary for disposal of this Civil Appeal are that 
the respondents/plaintiffs preferred a suit under Order XXXVII 
of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth ‘CPC’) against the 
appellants/defendants for recovery of Rs.
1,04,16,576/- with interest. 
The appellants/defendants entered appearance and filed application 
seeking leave to defend which was allowed by the Trial Court 
on 19th June 2019 with a direction to the appellants/defendants 
to deposit 50% of the suit claim. The said order was challenged
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
961
Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther v.  
Hafeez Ur Rahman & Ors.
before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 28349 of 2019 which 
was dismissed on 08th August 2019 against which an SLP (C) No. 
20626 of 2019 was preferred by the appellants/defendants which 
came to be dismissed on 06th September 2019, by passing the 
following order:- 
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order 
passed by the High Court. 
The special leave petition, is accordingly, dismissed. 
However, it is open for the petitioners to approach the 
High Court within four weeks from today for variation of 
the order satisfying the High Court that he can provide 
adequate security in terms of the orders of the High Court.”
3.	
Despite the above order passed by this Court, the appellants/
defendants did not approach the High Court for variation of the order 
as permitted by this Court. 
4.	
When the matter stood thus, the respondent/plaintiff filed memo dated 
14th November 2019, requesting the Trial Court to decree the suit 
in terms of Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) of the CPC. The Trial Court 
after considering the material on record, including the objections by 
the appellant/defendant rejected the memo vide order dated 07th 
March 2020. This order was assailed by the respondent/plaintiff 
before the High Court which has been allowed under the impugned 
order simultaneously directing the Trial Court to accept the memo 
and pass appropriate orders accordingly. 
5.	
The
appellants/defendants have argued that in view of Section 14 
of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (henceforth ‘IBC’), 
the moratorium has become operational, therefore, the suit cannot 
proceed. This argument was not accepted by the High Court and 
under the impugned order, the Trial Court was directed to accept 
the memo and pass appropriate orders. It is important to notice that 
this Court has passed an order on 01st December 2023 staying the 
impugned order, however, much prior to the interim order of this 
Court, the suit itself was decided finally by passing a decree on 20th 
April 2023. It is not brought to our notice that the said decree has 
been challenged any further by the defendants. Thus, for the present, 
the suit is not pending, therefore, the present appeal which arises

962
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
out of an interim order passed by the Trial Court during pendency 
of the suit, has been rendered infructuous. 
6.	
The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Result of the case: 
Appeal dismissed.