The main legal point established is that a defendant must raise a genuine and triable defense to warrant the grant of leave to defend in a summary suit, and the defense set up must not be illusory or devoid of merit.

I.A. 11737/2012 (by the defendant No.1 & 2 u/O XXXVII R3(5) CPC)

1. The present leave to defend application has been filed by the defendants in a summary suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.54,45,000/-, being the value of three cheques issued in its favour by the defendant No.1, towards payment of construction work with material that was undertaken by it for the defendants.

2. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff/firm is a building contractor and has undertaken a number of projects in and outside Delhi. The defendant No.1 is a private limited company and the defendant No.2 is a Director of the defendant No.1.

3. The plaintiff claims that in the month of March, 2008, the defendants had approached it for undertaking construction of a hotel on a plot of land owned by them and situated at Gurgaon and had asked for a quotation for the said work. The plaintiff had forwarded its quotation on 01.03.2008 and it had quoted the rate of Rs.600/- per square feet for the actual slab casted area. On 07.06.2008, the defendants had executed a work order in favour of the plaintiff for undertaking construction of the hotel building @ Rs.600/- per square feet, including steel and the plaintiff had successfully constructed the hotel which is presently being run under the name, “Hotel Tulip Inn”.

4. After the plaintiff had concluded the construction work, it raised a bill on the defendants that was duly certified and verified on 29.01.2009, by Mr. Vimal Bajaj, an Architect and Interior Designer appointed for the project by the defendants. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court to page 8 of the documents filed under index dated 15.12.2011, which shows that a sum of Rs.2,73,50,950/- had been certified by the Architect on 29.1.2009 for being released in favour of the plaintiff. Further, vide letter dated 05.12.2009, the Architect had informed the defendants that the total extra items executed by the plaintiff had been verified for a sum of Rs.95,41,080/-.

5. Though it has not been so averred in the plaint, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendants had released the amounts payable in terms of the bills raised and certified by their Architect on 29.01.2009 and 05.12.2009, except for an amount of Rs.85 lacs. Out of the said outstanding amount of Rs.85 lacs, the following three cheques totalling to a sum of Rs.54,45,000/- had been issued by the defendants:

S.No	Cheque No.	Drawn on	Date	Amount
1.	603087	UCO Bank, Civil Lines, Gurgaon.	24.06.2010	Rs. 19,80,000/-
2.	603088	UCO Bank, Civil Lines, Gurgaon.	24.06.2010	Rs. 19,80,000/-
3.	603089	UCO Bank, Civil Lines, Gurgaon.	24.06.2010	Rs. 14,85,000/-
Total				Rs. 54,45,000 /-

      6. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that when the aforesaid cheques were presented by the plaintiff to its banker for encashment, they were returned vide memo dated 02.07.2010 with the remarks, “effect not cleared, present again”. When the plaintiff had re-presented the said cheques, the defendants’ banker had returned them vide memo dated 06.10.2010, with the remarks, “payment stopped by the drawer”.

7. Aggrieved by the dishonour of the three cheques, the plaintiff had served a legal notice dated 16.11.2011 on the defendant. Despite receiving the aforesaid notice, the defendants had failed to respond, thus compelling the plaintiff to institute the present summary suit, based on the three cheques. Counsel for the plaintiff states that over and above the value of the three cheques totalling to Rs. 54,45,000/-, the plaintiff has also claimed interest on the said amount @ 18% per annum, from the date of issuance of the said cheques, till realiza