The defendant in an Order XXXVII suit must establish a substantial defense or genuine triable issues to be granted leave to defend.

1. Both suits, under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), are ripe for hearing arguments on the applications of the defendant therein for leave to defend.

2. When the suits are called out, none appears for the plaintiff in the suits; the counsel for the defendant in both the suits states that no reply to the applications for leave to defend has been received as yet. However, as per the office notation, replies have been filed. Upon the same being put to counsel for the defendant in both the suits, he states that time be given for filing rejoinder.

3. The application for leave to defend has to stand on its own legs and without disclosing as to what plea in the reply to the application for leave to defend needs rejoinder, time for filing rejoinder cannot be mechanically granted, particularly when these are commercial suits and are listed today for arguments on the applications for leave to defend.

4. The counsel for the defendant in the two suits then states that the two suits are identical in nature and besides the said two suits, five other suits of the same nature are pending in Dwarka Courts. It is further stated that an attempt was made in mediation to settle the suits, but without any success.

5. The suits cannot be kept pending in this fashion.

6. The counsel for the defendant in both the suits states that the defendant in each of the suits as well as the defendants in the suits pending in Dwarka Courts, are part of the same family and owners of agricultural land and had entered into separate agreements with the plaintiff for sale of their respective share in the said land to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has filed the suits including these two suits, to recover the amount paid under the agreements to sell, even though the plaintiff itself is in breach of the agreements to sell.

7. On the aforesaid submissions, the leave to defend applications in law do not disclose any ground for grant of leave to defend and the counsel for the defendants has been asked to argue. He however keeps on seeking adjournment.

8. At this stage, Mr. Aman Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff appears but instead of being keen on arguing his case, also seeks adjournment, to make another attempt to settle.

9. Once mediation has already failed, desire to make settlement is but an excuse for seeking adjournment.

10. The counsel for the defendant in both the suits has again been given an opportunity to argue. He only states, that it is the plea of the defendant in both the suits that the defendant has expended the monies received in advance from the plaintiff under the agreement to sell and thus is not in a position to refund the same.

11. I have enquired from the counsel for the defendant in both the suits, whether the defendants have instituted any suit for recovery of any loss which may have been suffered by the defendants on account of breach alleged by the plaintiff of the agreement to sell with the respective defendant.

12. The counsel for the defendants replies in the negative.

13. The counsel for the plaintiff has not made any arguments.

14. The files have been gone into.

15. The plaintiff has instituted each of the suits for recovery of Rs.1,66,87,500/- with pendente lite and future interest, pleading (i) that the defendant in each of the suits had offered to sell to the plaintiff his 1/3rd share i.e. 22 bighas and 5 biswas in agricultural land measuring 66 bighas and 15 biswas comprised in Khata Khatoni No.111/88 min Mustatil/Khasra Nos.148/1 (6-15), 5/135/1 (4-11), 22/2 (1-11), 23/2 (3-8), 24/2 (3-3), 27 (0-5), 6/2 (2-11), 3 (4-16), 4 (4-16), 5/1 (2-8), 7 (4-12), 8 (4-16), 9/1 (1-12), 26(0-5), 12/2/2(2-5), 3(6-6), 4(4-16), 5/1 (4-3), 7(3-16), situated in the revenue estate of Village Khera Dabar, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi; (ii) that the sale consideration was agreed to be Rs.16,68,75,000/-; (iii) that the defendant in