The court ruled that leave to defend a summary suit should be granted where defendants raise substantial defenses; however, failure to demonstrate a triable issue leads to dismissal.

ORDER :

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal, dismissing I.A.No.127 of 2025 in O.S.No.127 of 2024 filed by the petitioners/defendants for grant of leave to defend the Suit of the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was a Summary Suit for recovery of Rs.38,13,684/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum, filed under Order XXXVII read with Order VII Rule 1 and section 26 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). The petitioners/defendants in the said Suit filed the present I.A. (I.A.No.127 of 2025) under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) read with section 151 of the CPC seeking leave to defend the Suit and permit the petitioners/defendants to file a suitable written statement in defence of the alleged claim of the respondent/plaintiff.

3. By the impugned order dated 27.06.2025, the Trial Court dismissed the I.A. on the ground of the petitioners/defendants failing to establish a good case to defend the Suit.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submits that the Trial Court erred in not granting leave to defend the Suit since the petitioners had raised triable issues which warranted adjudication. Counsel submits that the triable issues included the three invoices issued by the plaintiff to the defendants for the supply of the goods agreed upon by the parties not containing the signature or seal of the defendant. Counsel also submits that the invoices raised by the plaintiff were false and fabricated. Counsel further submits that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim interest at the rate of 18% per annum since there was no agreement to that effect between the parties.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff places on record a document (Confirmation of Accounts) dated 24.04.2023 issued by the defendants to the plaintiff confirming the accounts for the period from 01.04.2019 to 24.04.2023 and reflecting the payments made by the defendants to the plaintiff till 18.02.2023. Counsel submits that all the invoices including those disputed by the defendants were mentioned in the said Confirmation of Accounts. Counsel submits that interest at the rate of 18% per annum was demanded due to the excessive and inordinate delay on the part of the defendants in making payments to the plaintiff including on nine occasions.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the documents placed on record to corroborate their respective submissions.

7. The Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the recovery of money was a ‘Summary Suit’ as defined under Order XXXVII of the CPC. Order XXXVII – ‘Summary Procedure’ under Rule 1 defines the Courts and Classes of Suits to which the order is to apply.

8. The present Suit falls under Order XXXVII Rule 1 Sub-rule (2)(b) of the CPC being a Suit in which the plaintiff seeks to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendants, with or without interest. The plaint avers that the plaintiff is a registered Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) and is a reputed vendor in the pulp and paper industry. The plaintiff and the defendants have been engaged in the business of sale (by the plaintiff) and purchase (by the defendants) of goods from 01.04.2019 to 13.01.2024. The plaintiff delivered paper and paper products to the defendants vide numerous invoices from 21.11.2020 to 13.03.2021. The invoices issued by the plaintiff to