The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles for granting leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, based on the defendant's ability to raise substantial triable issues.

ORDER

1. The plaintiff filed the captioned suit for recovery of Rs.4,96,00,000/-along with interest @ 9% per annum from 20.08.2014. The suit has been filed on the basis of two agreements dated 23.03.2013 and 20.08.2014.

2. Present application has been filed by the applicant/defendant under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking grant of leave to defend the suit.

3. It is averred in the present application that the suit does not fall within the ambit of Order XXXVII CPC and it does not fall in any of the classes/ category as envisaged in clause (2) of Rule (1), of Order XXXVII CPC.

4. Mr.Mahavir Singh, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant/defendant submitted that in order to invoke the special summary procedure as provided under Order XXXVII CPC, a simple money transaction is not sufficient but something more is required within the four corners of CPC and all and every money transactions cannot become the basis of claim under the said provision. The defendant has substantial question on facts which can only be adjudicated after leading evidence and cannot be decided in summary manner.

5. In the present case, the defendant has pleaded after entering the Agreement to Sell dated 23.03.2013 qua plot bearing No. 37, Block No.5, situated in the western extension area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 11005 measuring about 254 sq. yds, Khasra No. 1613/1147 and even after expiry of maturity period of the said agreement, the plaintiff was at no point of time ready with the funds and willing to perform her part of contract but only kept the property in question on hold for long time due to which the defendant could not sell the said property for long time and finally was able to sell the same only in the year 2018. The defendant has further pleaded that since the plaintiff had intentionally kept the property on hold, the defendant had to bear the losses as there was huge slump in the real estate market and the property had to be sold on a throw away prices. The defendant has pleaded that another reason to sell the property on throw away prices was the negativity published by the plaintiff in the relevant market and also created hue and cry threatening all the prospective buyers on the pretext of Agreement to Sell dated 23.03.2013. However, the plaintiff was neither ready to perform her part of contract nor allowed the defendant to sell the said property to any other buyer.

6. The defendant has further averred that he was in dire need of money which compelled him to enter the Agreement to Sell dated 23.03.2013, but such conduct of plaintiff led to direct and indirect business losses to the defendant and further suffered loss on account of prospective earning and also the interest. On the other hand, the defendant was always ready to abide by his part of agreement and further condoned the defaults and failures committed by the plaintiff as he always wanted the plaintiff to complete the deal. Therefore, the defendant is entitled for the damages which he suffered, directly & indirectly, and, therefore, the defendant reserves his rights to file the suit for damages.

7. Mr.Singh further submitted that the plaintiff has not disclosed the actual and true facts. The plaintiff was only the prospective buyer, who entered the Agreement to Sell dated 23.03.2013, only to gain profit out of the transactions, by selling the said property (bearing No. 10529 (5/37), ward No.XVI, Plot No.37, Block No.5, situated in the western extension area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi), at some higher rate, upon finding a suitable buyer without making any substantial investments/payments. But the plaintiff was unable to find the prospective buyer in respect to the property till the maturity of Agreement to Sell dated 23.03.2013. Therefore, the plaintiff neither shown her intentions and willingness to buy the property nor she was ready with the funds, at any point of time. Now the plaintiff has filed the suit only to extort the money from th