JUDGMENT : R.N. MANJULA, J. Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A. No. 13516 of 2015 in O.S. No. 3929 of 2015 dated 21.11.2015 on the file of XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the Order dated 21.11.2015 passed by the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A. No. 13516 of 2015 in O.S. No. 3929 of 2015. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. The petitioner is the 2nd defendant, 1st respondent is the plaintiff and 2nd respondent is the 1stdefendant in the suit. 4. The Civil Revision Petitioner is the unsuccessful 2nd defendant, who has filed a petition seeking leave to defend the summary suit filed against him by the plaintiff for recovery of money. Since the said petition was dismissed and the petitioner has not been granted with the leave to defend, 2nd defendant has challenged the same by filing this Civil Revision Petition. 5. The 1st respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money due to him in respect of the invoices raised by him for carrying the consignments ordered by the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff is doing freight services for sending the consignments to the importers through the 1st defendant -booking agent. It is pleaded by the 1st respondent/plaintiff that the 1st defendant being the Customs House Agent, has acted as the agent of the 2nd defendant and hence, his failure to pay the dues to the plaintiff, will also bind the 2nd defendant. By so stating, the plaintiff has impleaded both the 1st and 2nd defendants and filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,61,982/- with interest. 6. The 2nd defendant has filed a petition to grant leave to defend by stating that there is no privity of contract between himself and the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the 1st defendant alone has got the direct dealings with the 1st respondent/plaintiff and hence, the 1st defendant alone is liable. 2,61,982/- with interest. 6. The 2nd defendant has filed a petition to grant leave to defend by stating that there is no privity of contract between himself and the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the 1st defendant alone has got the direct dealings with the 1st respondent/plaintiff and hence, the 1st defendant alone is liable. The 2nd defendant has made the required payment to the 1st defendant and in turn if the 1st defendant fails to make payment to the 1st respondent/plaintiff-freight forwarder, the liability can be only on the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant cannot be added as a party to the suit. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the petition seeking leave to defend by stating that the 1st defendant has acted as an agent on behalf of the 2nd defendant and hence, the 2nd defendant is also jointly and severally liable. The learned trial Judge has relied on some of the invoices raised by the plaintiff in which the name of the 2nd defendant has also been shown as the consignee. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioner that the 1st defendant is not the exclusive agent for the 2nd defendant and he is a Customs House Agent, who provides services to various importers and exporters by processing their documents; it was the 1st defendant who approached the plaintiff to do various shipments, since he is the direct customer for the plaintiff. Though the shipments were delivered to the respective consignees at the discharge ports, the liability can be fixed on the 1st defendant. 8. On hearing the respective submissions of the parties and on seeing the averments of the plaint, it could be found that the 1st defendant is the Customs House Agent, who provides services to various importers and exporters by processing the documents for them in the custom house for custom clearance and then send the goods through the freight forwarders by receiving the cost and service charges. He himself has admitted that the 2nd defendant is his customer and he is not liable to the demands made by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. It is claimed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff that the 1st defendant has acted as an agent for the 2nd defendant. He himself has admitted that the 2nd defendant is his customer and he is not liable to the demands made by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. It is claimed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff that the 1st defendant has acted as an agent for the 2nd defendant. In reality, the 1st defendant is not the sole agent of the 2nd defendant but he is involved in doing agency services to various importers in consideration of the payments made to him. Since the 1st defendant is doing the customs clearance by verifying the documents, the importers could get his services for booking the freight forwarders for sending and receiving the consignments. Had the 2nd defendant appointed the 1st defendant as his business agent and given him the power to represent him to his customers or business associates, then the 2nd defendant can be made vicariously liable for the lapses on the part of the 1st defendant. 9. The 1st defendant is a customer for the 1st respondent and in turn, the 2nd defendant is a customer for the 1st defendant. Since the 1st defendant-Customs House Agent has already collected the charges from the respective importers, the payment has to be made by him to the freight forwarders, though the goods were delivered to the consignee. If a service agent like the 1st defendant places freight service orders from any freight forwarders in such a way that the consignment should be delivered to a particular shipping address, the details of the shipping addressee will also be printed in the invoices raised by the freight forwarders along with the details of the service agent. In these types of transactions, mentioning of the details of the consignee on the invoices raised by the freight forwarders alone may not be sufficient to state that the consignees are also liable for the failure to make payment by the booking agents. 10. All these facts can be established only if an opportunity is given to the 2nd defendant to defend the suit on the basis of the pleadings made by him. It is seen from the above discussion that the 2nd defendant could make out that there are some contentious and triable issues involved in this suit. 11. 10. All these facts can be established only if an opportunity is given to the 2nd defendant to defend the suit on the basis of the pleadings made by him. It is seen from the above discussion that the 2nd defendant could make out that there are some contentious and triable issues involved in this suit. 11. In support of his contention that whenever triable issues arise, leave to defend should be granted by the Court, the learned counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioner submitted the following citations and they are found to be applicable to the situation of this case: S. No. Dated Judgment Cause Title Citations 1. 05.02.1958 Santosh Kumar vs. Bhai Mool Singh AIR 1958 SC 321 2. 01.11.1976 M/s. Mechelec Engineers and Manufacturers vs. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation 1976 (4) SCC 687 3. 14.08.2001 N. Prabakaran vs. Manager, Citibank N.A. 2002 (1) LW 560 4. 05.01.2009 R. Saravana Prabhu and Another vs. Videocon Leasing and Industrial Finance Limited and Another 2013 (14) SCC 606 12. The learned trial Judge has omitted to make a distinction between an agent who exclusively represents the 2nd defendant in all his business transactions and agency service run by the 1st defendant for the benefit of the various importers and exporters, who are his customers. Since the learned trial Judge has not granted leave to defend despite there are triable issues arising in this case, I feel that the Order of the trial Judge has to be reversed. 13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Order dated 21.11.2015 passed by the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A. No. 13516 of 2015 in O.S. No. 3929 of 2015, is hereby set aside. No costs. Connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.