Defendants in summary suits must demonstrate a substantial defense or genuine triable issues to be granted leave to defend; mere allegations without credible substantiation are insufficient.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present second appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment/decree dated 4th January, 2022 in RCA No. 29/2020 titled Chander Pal Singh v. Shripal Singh passed by the Ld. ADJ-01 (East) KKD/Delhi (hereinafter "Appellate Court"). Vide the said order, the appeal against the judgment/decree dated 17th August, 2020 in Suit No. 670/2019 titled Shri Pal Singh v. Chandra Pal Singh passed by the CJ/East/KKD (hereinafter "Trial Court") has been dismissed.

3. The background of the case is that a summary suit seeking recovery of Rs.2 lakhs along with interest was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") before the Trial Court. The said suit under Order XXXVII CPC was based on a cheque of Rs.2 lakhs bearing no.812818 dated 29th October, 2016 which was stated to have been given in repayment of a friendly loan given by the Plaintiff to the Appellant/Defendant (hereinafter "Defendant"). In the leave to defend application, the Defendant claimed that the signatures on the cheque are admitted, however, the said cheque was blank when it was issued to one Mr. Prem Singh who is the brother of the Plaintiff. Mr. Madan, ld. Counsel for the Defendant, submits that there is no privity of contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff whatsoever. However, the Trial Court has held that the cheque was issued by the Defendant and held that there is no triable issue which has arisen in the present suit. The Appellate Court has also agreed with the said finding.

4. Ld. counsel for the Defendant further submits that there is a substantial question of law that arises in the present case. He submits that the brother of the Plaintiff was running a chit fund business and the amount, which was to be paid to him by the Defendant, was Rs.50,000/- only. Ld. counsel for the Defendant submits that for the said purpose, a blank cheque was issued by the Defendant.

5. This Court has heard counsel for the Defendant.

6. The first and the foremost important issue in the case is that the signature on the cheque is admitted. However, it is then argued that the drawee's name and amount etc., were left blank and was misused by the Plaintiff's brother. In this modern age, it is not acceptable that anybody would issue a signed blank cheque, that too with the name and amount being left blank. It is normal practice dictated by prudence, that when cheques are issued, name and amounts are filled, as there is always an apprehension of misuse. Contention of ld. Counsel for the Defendant, that the cheque was issued blank, simply with signatures is not acceptable to this Court. If such a plea is accepted, in each and every case relating to a financial instrument such as a cheque a plea can be taken that the same was a blank cheque which was only signed so that the suit goes into the vortex of delays. A criminal complaint is stated to have been filed in February 2017 relating to misuse of the cheque. However, it is relevant to point out that such a complaint was filed only after the legal notice was issued by the Plaintiff. This is also not usual conduct. If a cheque book is lost or if there is a fear of misuse of a cheque, the normal conduct in financial transactions would be to file a complaint immediately and not wait for receipt of a legal notice qua dishonouring of the cheque.

7. Simply because the Defendant is arguing that there is no privity between the parties would not mean that the same has to be accepted by the Court. A cheque is a monetary instrument and it is expected that a person who deals with a cheque and cheque books, would deal with them responsibly. The Calcutta High Court in Pankaj Kumar Goel vs. B.P. Projects Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 1 WBLR (Cal) 13 has held as under:

"13. State Bank of Hyderabad (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in as early as in 1949 in Kiranmoyee v. J. Chatterjee reported at AIR 1