Point of law: the principles stated in paragraph 8 of Mechelec’s case will now stand superseded, given the amendment of O.XXXVII R.3, and the binding decision of four judges in Milkhiram’s case, as follows: If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a substantial defence, that is, a defence that is likely to succeed, the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit;

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 12 of Original Side Rules read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned Master dated 10.03.2020 made in Application No.8907 of 2019 in C.S.No.491 of 2019.)

1. Aggrieved over the order dated 10.03.2020 in Application No.8907 of 2019, passed by the learned Master, the present application has been preferred before this Court.

2. The defendants 1 and 2 in Civil Suit No.491 of 2019, are the applicants herein. Initially, the respondent / plaintiff in this application has filed this suit against the applicants / defendants in C.S.No.491 of 2019, for a recovery of Rs.4,59,50,225/- together with interest at 24% per annum, on the principal sum of Rs.4,18,00,000/- from the date of plaint to till the date of realisation, alleging that the cheques pertaining to the suit, issued by the applicants/defendants in his favour, was return unpaid. Further, it was alleged on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff that the said cheques issued in his favour, were only to discharge their liability, which had arisen due to the purchase of showroom.

3. The said suit has been filed under Order XIV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXVII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. After filing the suit, in order to comply with the provisions narrated in the Order XXXVII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, the applicants herein filed an application before the learned Master in A.No.8907 of 2019, seeking the relief to grant leave for defend the suit in C.S.No.491 of 2019.

4. After an elaborate enquiry, the learned Master, by order dated 10.03.2020, allowed the application filed by the applicants, with the condition that the applicants have to furnish security for a sum of Rs.4.50 Crores, on or before 24.03.2020. Aggrieved over the said order, the applicants / defendants, are before this Court with the present application.

5. Heard Mr.K.Bijai Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants / defendants and Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants / defendants would challenge the impugned order by mentioning the following reasons.

(i) The cheque pertains to this case, is not issued in the name of the respondent.

(ii) In the notice dated 13.02.2019 sent by the respondent it was mentioned as the respondent Company is a partnership firm, but actually the respondent Company, is a proprietary concern.

(iii) The cheque numbers pertains to this case, are different from the cheque numbers, which have been mentioned in the Sale Agreement entered into between the applicants and the respondent.

(iv) The averments found in the plaint in respect to sending of Rs.1.20 Crores, to the applicants/defendants, no documentary proof is enclosed along with plaint. Apart from that, the suit has been filed after suppressing the factum of cancellation of dealership already stands in the name of the respondent.

7. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants is that, they have to file a counter claim against the respondent and therefore, it is necessary to grant leave for defending the suit. The learned Master, after considering those aspects, granted leave in favour of the applicants with the conditions.

8. Now, on considering the said submission with relevant records, here, it is a case that in respect to grant of leave, the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants had already been accorded by the learned Master, therefore, it is not necessary to find out whether triable issues have arisen or not. In fact, in respect to grant of leave to defend the suit, the applicants, are not aggrieved parties.

9. According to the applicants, the only grievance having by them is, while at the time of allowing the leave to defend application, the learned Master allowed the same, with a condition to furnish security of Rs.4.50 Crores.

10. In this regard, the learned counsel appeari