The denial of leave to defend is not standard; defendants are entitled to unconditional leave if they present valid defenses or triable issues.

ORDER :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2024 in I.A.No.38 of 2024 in O.S.No.5999 of 2023 on the file of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prudhvi Raj, learned counsel representing Sri R.Mangulal, learned counsel for respondents.

3. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioner herein is a businessman engaged in rice trading. The respondents herein placed an order for supply of rice and the same was supplied to respondents through M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Traders and M/s. Anjaneya Rice Industries. However, respondents did not make payment and on regular follow up, the respondents issued two cheques in discharge of liability, however, the same were returned on presentation with remarks ‘insufficient funds’. On repeated requests and persuasion, the respondents issued two more cheques, however, those two cheques were also returned on presentation for the reason ‘insufficient funds’.

4. Subsequently, respondents issued legal notice dated 14.11.2022 to the petitioner herein contending that two cheques, which were dishonoured, were issued as advance for pending delivery of rice. Petitioner got issued legal notice dated 09.08.2023 to the respondents for payment of outstanding amounts. When there was no response from the respondents, petitioner filed private complaint against the respondents before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad and the same was referred to P.S. Afzalgunj on 06.10.2023 and the P.S. Afzalgund registered the same as crime No.503 of 2023 against the respondents on 14.11.2023 under Sections 405 , 415 and 420 of IPC.

5. The petitioner filed summary suit under Order XXXVIII Rule 2 of CPC vide O.S.No.5999 of 2023 before the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of Rs.19,65,000/-; that summons were served on the respondents and on appearance, summons for judgment were issued. Thereafter, respondents filed application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) of CPC seeking leave to defend the suit. In the said application, respondents stated that petitioner herein filed the suit in order to gain illegally and has suppressed the material facts. It is further stated that respondents have not issued cheques towards any liability as alleged by the petitioner and the same were given as security on false promise made by the petitioner. It is also stated that there is no business relationship with the petitioner and that suit was filed basing on fake and fabricated documents and same would not withstand scrutiny of law.

6. Petitioner filed counter resisting the application and stated that respondents did not deny the signatures on the cheques issued by them and it was specifically denied the allegation of respondents that cheques were issued as security on false promise made by the petitioner. It is also stated that in the legal notice dated 14.11.2022 issued by the respondents, they never mentioned that there was no business transaction and relationship with the petitioner, however, for the first time in the application filed by the respondents seeking to leave to defend the said plea and finally, prayed to dismiss the application.

7. The Trial Court, taking into consideration, the contentions of both the parties as well as material placed on record, has allowed the application filed by the respondents seeking leave of the Court to defend the suit unconditi