ORDER :

1. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the defendants/petitioners have challenged the order dated 10-1-2023 passed in RCS No. 175-B/2021 by the 11th Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Indore whereby their application under Order 37, Rule 3(5) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE for grant of leave to defend the suit has been rejected.

2. The plaintiff/respondent has instituted a summary suit before the trial Court under the provisions of Order 37 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE for recovery of a sum of Rs. 44,20,022/- from the defendants submitting that it is a private limited company engaged in business of sale of PVC pipes and drips sprinklers. It had supplied goods to the defendants on various dates worth Rs. 23,01,877/-. The defendants paid a sum of Rs. 1,75,873/- only and did not pay any further amount. For the total amount of Rs. 30,66,892/- due the defendants issued a cheque to plaintiff which was dishonored on 7-6-2019 for insufficiency of funds. Notice was issued to the defendants but no payment was made by them as a result of which the suit has been filed.

3. Upon service of summons upon them, the defendants filed an application under Order 37, Rule 3(5) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE supported by an affidavit for leave to defend the suit submitting that they do not know the plaintiff and have never entered into any transaction with it. The defendants have never been a dealer of plaintiff nor were appointed as such by plaintiff. M/s Noble Polymers Silvasa through Manager, Madhu Kumar Acharya had contacted the defendants for supply of drip irrigation and pipe fitting to it. On 15-6-2017 it had appointed the defendants as its dealer. At that time as per policy of the said firm two cheques were issued by defendants by way of security to it which were blank and had only been signed. However, subsequently due to change in policy by the State Government the defendants did not remain to be a dealer. No goods had been purchased by defendants from M/s Noble Polymers which through its Manager Madhu Kumar Acharya has colluded with plaintiff which with mala fide intention has instituted the present suit on the basis of dishonour of cheques by filling and presenting them before the Bank though no amount was payable thereunder. The application was contested by plaintiff by filing its reply to the same.

4. The application has been rejected by the trial Court by holding that the cheques were issued by defendant No. 1 Satish Gehlot and were signed by him. Though defendants contend that M/s Noble Polymers had appointed them as a dealer and the cheques had been issued to it by way of security but no document as regards appointment of defendants as a dealer has been produced by them. The plaintiff had issued a notice to defendants on 10-6-2019 after which complaint was made by them to the Police on 11-8-2022 i.e. subsequent to institution of the suit hence does not help them in any manner and appears to have been made only for creating a ground for defence in the suit. The grounds as have been taken by the defendants in their application do not appear to be bona fide hence leave cannot be granted to them.

5. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners has submitted that the defendants have given in detail the grounds in their application on which leave to defend was sought for. Those grounds are quite substantial in nature. The correctness of the averments made in the application was not required to be proved at this stage itself which would be a matter of evidence. For the present the defendants were only required to prima facie show that they have substantial defen