The High Court quashed an order dismissing an application for leave to defend in a summary suit filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC. The court held that the defendant raised triable issues regarding payment of the loan and coercion, which could not be dismissed without a trial.
Leave to defend granted; impugned order quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP.No.2168 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 16.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRP.No.2168 of 2024 and CMP.No.11567 of 2024
M.Swaminathan ... Petitioner
Versus 1.K.Dhanam 2.J.Deepa Kumar 3.K.Kamesh 4.K.Kamini ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order (Online Copy) in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.3174/2023 dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For petitioner : Mr.K.V.Sundararjan for Mr.M.Murali For Respondents : Mr.D.Muthukumarappa
Page 1 / 6
O R D E R
CRP.No.2168 of 2024
Challenging the impugned order dismissing the application filed for granting leave to defend the suit filed under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC, the present revision has been filed.
Page 2 / 6
CRP.No.2168 of 2024
and the said cheque when presented was dishonored. Hence, the suit. The Trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide the impugned order. Hence, this revision.
death of the first respondent's husband, when the first respondent had approached
Page 3 / 6
CRP.No.2168 of 2024
the defendant, he had issued a cheque dated 02.05.2022 and the said cheque was dishonored and thus, the said suit came to be filed. According to him, there is no valuable defense available to the defendant. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the revision.
Page 4 / 6
CRP.No.2168 of 2024
indicate as if apart from the suit cheque, one pro-note is also obtained by the plaintiffs. All these facts have not been found place in the pleadings. Plaint proceeds as if the amount has been borrowed in the year 2013, thereafter, cheque has been issued only in the year 2022. Thus, this Court is of the view that all these facts have to be seen only in a proper trial. As the defense raised by the defendant does not appears to be a sham one and the triable issue has been raised, the Trial Court dismissing the application outrightly without going into the documents cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
the defendant to file his written statement within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Trial Court shall proceed with the suit on merits and dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16.12.2024
Index : Yes / No Speaking/non speaking order
Page 5 / 6
CRP.No.2168 of 2024
dhk
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk
To,
The XVII Assistant Judge XVII Assistant City Civil Court Chennai
CRP.No.2168 of 2024
16.12.2024
Page 6 / 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the defense raised by the defendant in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC is real or sham?
Whether the trial court should have granted leave to defend without going into the evidence regarding discharge of liability?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Swaminathan
K.Dhanam
J.Deepa Kumar
K.Kamesh
K.Kamini
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
