The main legal point established is that the court should grant leave to defend a summary suit unless the defendant's facts do not indicate a substantial defence or the intended defence is frivolous or vexatious.

1. The defendants in the original suit O.S.No.6841 of 2012 filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, chennai are the petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. In the suit instituted by submitting a plaint under Order XXXVII CPC, the plaintiff had alleged that the plaintiff lent a sum of Rs.75,000/- on the suit promissory note dated 13.10.2008 wherein the defendants had agreed to repay the same with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum; that subsequently, the defendants paid interest on the principal upto 12.08.2009 and two more payments were made by cheques drawn on Vijaya Bank bearing Cheque Nos.095329 and 095228 dated 24.11.2008, and 17.12.2008 respectively and that thereafter the defendants informed the plaintiff that they were indebted to many other creditors besides the plaintiff and that they would issue consolidated cheques to their financial agents who inturn would make payments to the creditors including the plaintiff. It was further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff firm agreed for such payment pursuant to which a number of cheques were issued to the financial agents and the financial agents in turn issued as many as 8 cheques from 02.03.2009 to 12.07.2012 towards the discharge of the amount due under the suit promissory note; that after adjusting all those payments, a sum of Rs.52,985/- (consisting of Rs.34,385/- towards principal and Rs.18,600/- towards interest) was due and a demand was made for the payment of the said amount by issuing a pre-suit notice dated 10.08.2012 and that since the defendants did not come forward to make payment, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit as a summary suit on the promissory note.

3. The defendants who received summons for judgment filed an application I.A.No.1990 of 2013 under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC seeking leave of the Court to defend the suit on merits. The said application was resisted by the respondent firm / plaintiff by filing a counter. The learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides, came to the conclusion that the facts disclosed by the revision petitioners (defendants) in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking leave to defend do not indicate that they had a substantial defence to be raised and that the defence intended to be put forth by the revision petitioners/defendants was frivolous and vexatious. Based on the said finding, the learned trial Judge dismissed the said application I.A.No.1990 of 2013 by an order dated 25.03.2013, which is assailed by the revision petitioners in the present revision.

4. Notice before admission was given and the parties are represented by counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr. Sampathkumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and by Mr. T. Srikanth, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed-sets of papers on both sides are also perused.

5. The original suit came to be filed by the respondent herein as a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC on the file of the trial Court based on a negotiable instrument, namely promissory note. The suit instituted as a summary suit is not challenged by the defendants therein on the ground that the suit ought not to have been filed as a summary suit. On the other hand, admitting that the suit was instituted under the proper provision, the defendants therein, who are the petitioners in the present revision, chose to file I.A.No.1990 of 2013 seeking the leave of the Court to defend the suit based on their contention that they did have valid pleas of defence to be raised in the suit against the claim made against them. The mere filing of an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC seeking the leave of the Court to defend the suit will not result in the automatic grant of leave. If the Court comes to the conclusion that there are valid defences to be raised, which cannot be decided without conducting a full fledged trial, the defe