Summary
Unconditional leave to defend the summary recovery suit was granted because the defendant raised substantial, genuine triable issues. Prior commercial dealings alone did not justify a Rs.30 lakh deposit condition. The unexplained time gap before the cheques, disputed cheque contents, return of defective goods, asserted payment of the balance and withdrawal of earlier cheque prosecutions required proper consideration. The Court decided leave, not ultimate liability.
Issues
- Whether the materials justified conditioning leave to defend on a substantial deposit.
Provisions considered
- Order XXXVII rule 3(5), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Required proper assessment of the defence and judicious conditions; a substantial genuine defence warranted unconditional leave here, while mandatory deposit of admitted dues was not the controlling issue. (¶¶ 10–13, 16–17)
Held
- Conditional leave remained available where the defence warranted judicial doubt; discretion had to address the actual materials and avoid excluding genuine defences through severe conditions. Absence of admitted debt alone was not dispositive. (¶ 11–13)
- The chronology of cheque issuance, demand for original prosecution documents, later civil suit and unconditional prosecution withdrawal, combined with the undenied return-of-goods and payment contentions, disclosed a substantial defence. (¶ 14–16)
- The existence of a commercial relationship explained the suit but could not by itself justify the deposit condition without evaluating that defence. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; orders imposing conditional leave set aside. Defendant granted unconditional leave to defend the summary suit.