Honble MITAL, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1st June, 1996 passed by learned District Judge, Jalore in Civil Suit No. 11/94 under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code.

(2). To appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the necessary facts may be stated briefly as under:-

(3). Respondent Smt. Gheesi wife of Sukhram Mahajan, resident of Ahore brought a civil suit under order 37 C.P.C. for realisation of Rs. 2,67,960/- (principal amount Rs. 1,74,000/- + interest Rs. 93,960/-) in the Court of District Judge, Jalore stating in the plaint that the appellant Lalchand is the friend of her husband, who needed money for expanding his business. He requested her on 14.10.91 at Ahore to advance Rs. 1,74,000/- to him. On account of his acquaintance and friendship with her husband, she agreed to give a loan of Rs. 1,74,000/- to the appellant and the amount was paid to him by a bank draft payable to M/s. Lalchand & Company. The bank draft issued by State Bank of India, Ahore was given to the appellant on 14.10.91 at Ahore which was got encashed by him through his bank State Bank of India, Jodhpur. The appellant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The appellant did not pay the interest and also did not refund the principal amount despite registered letter dated 13.6.94. and legal registered notice dated 20.9.94. Thus, the plaintiff respondent claimed in the suit a decree for the principal amount of Rs. 1,74,000/- and interest from 14.10.91 to the date of filing of the suit at the rate of 18% Rs. 93,960/- i.e. Rs. 2,67,960/-.

(4). On service of the notice, the appellant submitted application through his counsel for leave to defend which was rejected being barred by time prescribed in Rule 3 of Order 37 C.P.C. The trial Court also held that the facts disclosed by the defendant did not indicate that he had a substantial defence to raise in his favour. Ultimately the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and decree under Order 37 C.P.C.

(5). The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and the decree on the ground that the respondents suit on the facts stated by her in the plaint was not maintainable under Order 37 C.P.C. and on the basis of a bank draft alleged to have been given by her in favour of the appellant for loan transaction. It is further argued that the respondent also stated about a contract with the appellant for payment of interest at the rate of 18% but such contract must be in writing and without a written contract the respondents suit was not maintainable for claiming the interest. Thus, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit summarily under Or- der 37 C.P.C. The notices were not also duly served with a copy of the plaint. The appellant was also entitled to leave to defend because he emphatically denied the fact of taking loan whereas the respondent did not produce any written contract.

(6). The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and decree that the respondents suit based on the bank draft encashed by the appellant was maintainable. The suit was filed for recovery of debt or liquidated demand of money payable by the defendant. It is urged on behalf of the respondent that the learned trial Court has given very cogent reasons for rejecting the application for leave to defend and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

(7). Order 37 C.P.C. provides summary procedure in respect of certain classes of suits where the defendant has no right to defend the suit like in ordinary suits without the leave of the Court which has to be obtained by him by filing an application within the prescribed time on the service of summons. Such leave is granted by the Court only when the application and the affidavit filed by the defendant discloses facts sufficient to entitle him to defend. The Court can refuse the leave to defend if it is revealed that the defendant has no substantial defence to raise or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document