Advocates Appeared:
A.S.CHANDHIOK, K.N.BHATT, S.P.SRIVASTAVA, VIJAY VERMA

Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:

1. The suits filed by the plaintiff bank under Order 37 CPC are maintainable, as they are based on promissory notes which constitute the consideration for the loans advanced. The courts have affirmed that promissory notes, even if initially taken as security, can serve as the basis for a suit under Order 37 CPC (!) (!) .

2. The scope of Order 37 CPC is limited to considering the facts disclosed in the defendant's affidavit that may entitle the defendant to defend. It does not extend to entertaining pleas of counter-claims or extraneous controversies at the stage of granting leave to defend (!) (!) .

3. The filing of a counter-claim is not an action in defense on the face of the application for leave to defend. The provisions of Order 37 CPC do not contemplate the entertainment of counter-claims in summary suits, and such claims should be brought through separate proceedings if they are to be pursued (!) (!) .

4. The court strictly interprets the provisions of Order 37 CPC, emphasizing that the defendant's affidavit should disclose facts sufficient to entitle them to defend. Pleas of negligence or damages, which are extraneous to the defendant's right to raise a defense, are not considered at this stage (!) (!) .

5. The defendant's plea that the plaintiff negligently allowed the security shares to deteriorate in value was found unsupported by specific facts or evidence, and the fact that the defendant executed documents in 1983 admitting liability was deemed to waive prior causes of action or damages (!) .

6. The court held that the omission of the legislature to explicitly incorporate the entertainment of counter-claims in Order 37 CPC indicates that such pleas are not to be considered at the leave to defend stage. If the defendant has a counter-claim, it should be initiated as a separate suit (!) .

7. The court emphasized that extraneous controversies, such as allegations of misconduct or negligence, cannot justify the extension of the scope of a summary suit brought under Order 37. The defense must be limited to facts that directly support the defendant's right to defend the suit (!) (!) .

8. In the specific cases, the court found that the defendant's pleas regarding negligence and damages were either unsupported or barred by the execution of fresh documents in 1983, which admitted liability. Therefore, these pleas were considered bogus or frivolous (!) .

9. As a result, the applications for leave to defend were dismissed, and the courts decreed the suits in favor of the plaintiff bank, awarding the claimed amounts with interest and costs. The courts also directed that adjustments be made in respect of shares sold during the pendency of the suits (!) (!) .

10. Overall, the legal principles reaffirm that in summary suits under Order 37 CPC, the scope for raising extraneous pleas, including counter-claims or damages unrelated to the core claim, is limited. Such issues should be pursued through separate proceedings if appropriate (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.