The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of leave to defend in commercial causes is determined based on the defendant's substantial defense and the presence of genuine triable issues.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. No.36119-20/2018(exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M.s stand disposed of.

C.M. Nos.36118/2018(condonation of delay in filing)

2. For the reasons stated in the applications, delay of 256 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No.741/2018 and C.M. No.36117/2018(stay)

3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant no.1 in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 18.9.2017 by which trial court dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the appellant/defendant no.1 under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC and has decreed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.89,50,244/- alongwith interest @ 10% per annum.

4. The facts of the case are that the respondent no.1/plaintiff filed the subject suit under Order 37 CPC pleading that the appellant/ defendant no.1 represented that it is a Real Estate and Infrastructure Development Firm that and the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 was working as the contractor for the appellant/defendant no.1 for the project of the appellant/defendant no.1, namely MIST being developed at Plot no.1, Sector-143-B, Noida. The appellant/defendant no.1 approached the respondent no.1/plaintiff for a supply of 200 tons of steel for carrying on the construction for MIST project. Between the defendants, it was agreed that the purchase orders would be generated and issued by the defendant no.2/respondent no.2. Respondent no.1/plaintiff supplied necessary goods and invoices were raised upon the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 stating in those invoices C/o Mist. The purchase orders and the bills issued thereupon after supply of materials, are detailed in para 7 of the plaint, and which para 7 reads as under:-

“7. That the Plaintiff after supplying the steel, as per the above mentioned two purchase orders, to Defendant no.2, issued several bills/invoices in respect of the material supplied in accordance with the purchase orders generated by Defendant no.-2. The details of bills/invoices raised by Plaintiff in respect of two purchase orders abovementioned are herein under:-

The details of the bills/invoices that are raised against the purchase order no.POR/1415/00006381 dated-06.02.2015 are as under:-

The details of the bills/invoices that are raised against the Purchase order no-POR/1415/00007279 dated-20.03.2015 are as under:      

Original/Certified copy of invoices of Rs.89,50,244/- issued by the Plaintiff is being filed as document along with the list of documents of the present suit.”

5. The appellant/defendant no.1 in discharge of its liability from time to time made various payments and which were duly reflected in the books of account of the respondent no.1/plaintiff. There however remained a balance due of Rs.89,50,244/- as on 6.1.2016. The appellant/defendant no.1 in discharge of its partial liability issued two cheques drawn on Axis bank bearing nos.037274 and 037272 dated 4.5.2015 and 9.5.2015 for Rs.14,72,269/- and Rs.13,34,319/- respectively but these cheques were not presented at the request of the appellant/defendant no.1. These two original cheques were filed alongwith the plaint. The liability of the appellant/defendant no.1 and the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 was pleaded to be joint and several. The subject suit was hence filed for recovery of Rs.89,50,244/- alongwith interest.

6. The appellant/defenda