The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act and Section 18(1) of the Limitation Act in determining the validity of a settlement agreement and the maintainability of a suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

I.A. 1304/2021 (of the defendant no.4 u/O- XXXVII R-3(5) of CPC), I.A. 1305/2021 (of the defendant no.5 u/O- XXXVII R-3(5) of CPC), I.A. 1308/2021 (of the defendant no.2 u/O- XXXVII R-3(5) of CPC), I.A 1324/2021 (of the defendant no.7 u/O- XXXVII R-3(5) of CPC), I.A. 1325/2021 (of the defendant no.6 u/O- XXXVII R-3(5) of CPC), I.A. 1326/2021 (of the defendant no.3 u/O- XXXVII R-3(5) of CPC) & I.A. 1963/2021 (of the defendant no.1 u/O- XXXVII R-3(5) of CPC)

1. The present suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff as a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking recovery of Rs.3,31,00,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @24% per annum till the realisation of the amount in full.

2. In the plaint, it has been pleaded that:-

I. The defendants no.2 and 3 are the brothers of the plaintiff and the defendants no.4 and 5 are the sons of the defendant no.2 and the defendants no.6 and 7 are the sons of the defendant no.3. Defendant no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office in Alwar, Rajasthan.

II. Between 1995 and 2010, the plaintiff advanced loans to the defendants nos. 1 to 7 for a total sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- out of her personal savings and stridhan.

III. In the year 2014, a further sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1, which amount was repaid to the plaintiff on 13th March, 2015.

IV. In respect of the loans advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants between 1995 and 2010, various meetings took place between the plaintiff along with her husband and the defendants between January, 2018 to March, 2018, pursuant to which a settlement agreement dated 1st April, 2018 was entered into between the plaintiff on one hand and all the defendants on the other hand. In terms of the said settlement agreement, it was agreed that a sum of Rs.3,31,00,000/- would be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. The said agreement bears the signatures of all the defendants. Towards discharge of their joint liability, three post-dated cheques were also handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,31,00,000/-.

V. All the aforesaid three cheques were dishonoured upon presentation. A legal notice dated 16th March, 2020 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendants calling upon them to pay the amount of Rs.3,31,00,000/-. However, the defendants failed to reply to the same.

VI. Upon failure on the part of the defendants to pay the aforesaid amount, the present suit under the provision of Order XXXVII of the CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff along with applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, being I.A 8709/2020 and under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC, being I.A 8710/2020.

3. Separate leave to defend applications have been filed on behalf of the defendants no. 1 to 7. Replies to the said applications have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Parties have also filed written submissions along with judgments in support of their submissions.

4. Counsel for the plaintiff has primarily relied upon the terms of the settlement agreement dated 1st April, 2018 entered into between the parties, wherein the defendants have admitted their liability of Rs.3,31,00,000/- and pursuant thereto, the defendants have issued three post-dated cheques in favour of the plaintiff.

5. In support of the applications seeking leave to defend, counsel for the defendants no.1, 3 , 6 and 7, has made the following submissions :-

I. The signatures of the defendants no.3, 6 and 7 have been forged on the aforesaid agreement. Further, the defendant no.2 was not authorised to sign on the said agreement on behalf of the defendant no.1 company.

II. Defendant no.2 also did not have the authority to sign the aforesaid three cheques on behalf of the defendant no.1 company and signatures of the defendant no.3 on the aforesaid cheques are forged and fabricated.

III. No amounts were ever received from the plaintiff between the year