The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a substantial defense and the genuineness of triable issues in summary suits, as well as the court's discretion to impose conditions on the defendant based on the plausibility of the defense.

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Present summary suit has been filed under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs.1,27,10,829/-

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff supplied CCTV equipments to the defendants. It is the plaintiff’ case that the defendants did not make any payment after 07th June, 2010 and that in a meeting held on 05th September, 2012, the defendants accepted the liability of Rs.82,53,785/- uptil 20th September, 2012 and accordingly handed over a cheque bearing no.151930 dated 20th September, 2012 amounting to Rs.82,53,785/-.

3. It is the plaintiff’s case that the said cheque has been returned unpaid by the banker of the defendants on account of ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 03rd October, 2012. As no payment was received, the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is stated to be pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

4. Along with the present summary suit, the plaintiff has filed a duly certified ledger account of the defendants as well as the invoices of the goods supplied and the certified copy of cheque dated 20th September, 2012.

5. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that the cheque, on the basis of which present suit has been filed, had been stolen by the former employees of the plaintiff company. Learned counsel for the defendants states that on 22nd September, 2012, the defendants had filed a complaint of theft of the cheque in question with the police. Learned counsel for the defendants has drawn this Court’s attention to the status report filed by the police in the complaint filed by the defendants under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the Status Report reads as under:-

“During enquiry it was revealed that the complainants had business relations with M/s Komanshu Electronics Pvt. Ltd. from 2005 to 2009 and were taking security equipments from them. Due to some differences, the business relations were severed. Both the companies are competing each other in the market. Mr. Praveen Malhotra and Sanjay Gupta Director of Komansu Electronics Pvt. Ltd. having its office at WP-79, 2nd floor, Wazirpur Village, Ashok Vihar stated that that had dues of payment of Rs. 67,5,962.73/- toward GADSEC SOLUTIONS which along with interest came out to be Rs. 82,53,785.00/- till 20/9/2012, which was settled between the parties and Mr. Amitabh Sharma and Sanjay Sharma provided them the said cheque of OBC Bank of the given amount. However, they denied that the cheque was filled up before them. No mediator could be found in the settlement. On the other hand the complainants denied having any such dues and also denied having issued the said cheque no. 151930. Further it is difficult to digest that the complainants would have agreed to pay along with interest as desired by the alleged Komansu Electronics’ directors. It seems prima facie that the cheque was obtained to enforce payment of the desired amount on behalf of alleged Komansu Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

In view of above facts and circumstances order given by the Hon’ble Court will be complied with.”

6. Learned counsel for the defendants also refers to the statement given by Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Director of the plaintiff company to the police, wherein he has stated that the cheque in question was handed over to him by Mr. Vinay Sharma in the defendants’ office at Aggarwal City Plaza, Rohini, Delhi-85 “duly filled up with the agreed upon amount.”

7. Learned counsel for the defendants states that plaintiff has manipulated the cheque by inserting the dates and the names with a different pen. He further states that plaintiff has failed to name and give details of business friends who intervened in squaring up the transaction. He points out that an independent handwriting expert appointed by the defendants has opined that the name of payee & amount in figures as well as in the words had not been written by the