1. Rule. Mr.S.P.Majmudar, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided, finally.

2. The challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 27.07.2012, passed by the learned Chamber Judge, Court No.6, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (“the City Civil Court”), below the application at Ex.22, in Summary Suit No.554 of 2011, whereby unconditional leave to defend has been granted to the respondent (original defendant).

3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, having filed Summary Suit No.554 of 2011 in the City Civil Court against the respondent, for recovery of dues amounting to Rs.68,65,618/, along with interest amounting to Rs.7,07,904/, that is, for a total amount of Rs.75,73,512/. The respondent filed an affidavit for leave to defend, raising a dispute as to the quality of goods supplied to the respondent and also challenging the interest on delayed payments. By the impugned order, the City Civil Court granted unconditional leave to defend, to the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the respondent has admitted its outstanding dues payable to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.11.2010. A perusal thereof would go to show that the respondent has mentioned the cheques that have been given by it and in the body of the letter, has asked the petitioner to send the statement of accounts in detail, so as to enable it to make the payment on schedule. It is submitted that the contents of this letter have been misread by the City Civil Court while passing the impugned order. The respondent was very well aware that the cheques issued by it were dishonoured for insufficient funds and its liability has clearly been admitted.

5. That, the respondent has raised a defence that the goods supplied by the petitioner were of inferior quality, only after the filing of the summary suit. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent has complained about this aspect to the petitioner, earlier. In the leave to defend application, the respondent has stated that the goods are lying in the godown and the petitioner was informed to take them away as they are of inferior quality. However, no documents have been produced in support of the said defence. The cheques issued by the respondent have clearly been dishonoured. This aspect, coupled with the admission by the respondent, is sufficient to show that the respondent has not raised any triable issue. The City Civil Court, therefore, ought not to have granted unconditional leave to defend. The petitioner ought to have been directed to deposit the claim amount or a reasonable amount, if the City Civil Court thought it fit to grant leave to defend.

6. In support of the above submissions, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:

(a) Unreported judgment of Delhi High Court in M/s.Shyam Dri Power Ltd. v. Bhav Shakti Steel Mines Private Limited – Company Petition No.475 of 2009, decided on 09.08.2012.

(b) Sify Ltd. v. First Flight Couriers Ltd. (2008)4 SCC 246.

(c) V.K.Enterprises And Another v. Shiva Steels – (2010)9 SCC 256

7. Mr.S.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent, has strongly opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, by submitting that the suit, itself, cannot be tried as a summary suit as there is no contract regarding interest between the parties. The suit is liable to be tried as a long-cause suit as the claim for interest takes it out from the ambit of summary proceedings. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Zonal Manager v. Akhilbhai B.Mehta – 2002(2) GCD (UJ) (Guj.).

8. It is further submitted that from no angle can the letter dated 25.11.2010,