In summary suits, leave to defend must be granted if the defendant raises substantial triable issues. The court must exercise its discretion judiciously, as the refusal of leave is an exception intended only for frivolous or vexatious defences that lack any genuine triable issue.

JUDGMENT :

BIPIN GUPTA, J.

1. With the consent of both the parties, the present appeal was finally heard at this stage itself.

2. The present civil first appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2025, passed by learned Commercial Court, Kota, in Civil Suit No. 21/2024 (CNR No. RJKT1D0001242024), whereby the learned Commercial Court (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Court below’) dismissed the defendant-appellant’s application dated 12.09.2025 seeking leave to defend and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent for a sum of Rs.5,14,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 01.02.2024, i.e., the date of institution of the suit.

3. The relevant facts culminating in the present appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent, UCO Bank, a corporate entity incorporated under the Banking Companies Act, 1970, with its Head Office located at 10 BTM Sarani Kolkata and Branch in Rampura, Kota, filed a civil suit against the defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant applied for Cash Credit (CC) limit and a General Emergency Credit Line (GECL) from UCO Bank. The Bank approved and disbursed a CC limit of Rs.4,00,000/- on 16.10.2017, with account number 0139061002407 and a GECL loan of Rs.80,000/- on 17.06.2020, payable in 36 monthly installments of Rs.2,489/- each, with account number 01390610022351. The defendant-appellant executed requisite documents, affirming that he had read and understood the Bank’s terms and conditions, and agreed to hypothecate stock held at his business premises as security for the loans.

3.1 The defendant-appellant defaulted on repayment, leading to both accounts becoming irregular as on 30.04.2022. The total outstanding amount due to the Bank is Rs.4,44,000/- plus Rs. 70,000/-, aggregating to Rs.5,14,000/-. The plaintiff-respondent issued notices demanding repayment, but the defendant-appellant failed to settle the dues. Subsequently, the plaintiff-respondent sought mediation through the District Legal Services Authority, Kota, on 25.04.2023. Despite appearing before the Authority, the defendant-appellant did not repay the dues, resulting in a non-starter report dated 13.06.2023.

3.2 The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit seeking a decree for recovery of Rs.5,14,000/- along with interest from 31.03.2023. Summons were issued to the defendant-appellant under Order XXXVII CPC.

3.3 Upon appearance, the defendant-appellant filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 2 and 3 CPC for leave to defend and contended that the plaintiff-respondent-UCO Bank declared his account as Non-Performing Asset (hereinafter referred to as “NPA”) inspite of payments during the Covid-19 pandemic, allegedly without providing details regarding date or reasons for such declaration no information of NPA was given and thus bank had no right to bring suit. The defendant-appellant claimed that the plaintiff-respondent- UCO Bank attached and auctioned his residential property to recover dues and argued that the plaintiff-respondent’s action was unjustified.

3.4 The plaintiff-respondent filed a detailed reply on the application filed by the defendant-appellant stating that information of NPA was sent.

3.5 The learned Court below dismissed the defendant’s application for leave to defend and passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff on 06.10.2025.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2025, the defendant-appellant preferred the present civil first appeal before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant