Conditional leave to defend granted if plausible defense shown, reflecting good faith considerations in summary suit under Order 37 CPC.

ORDER

11.08.2025.

(O R A L)

1. In the instant petition, the petitioner herein has invoked the inherent power of this Court, enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside order dated 26^th June, 2025 (for short “the impugned order), passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar (for short the “trial court”) in case tiled “Nasir Niyaz Najar v. Ashiq Hussain Dar”.

2. The facts emerging from the record would reveal that the respondent herein has filed a suit under Order (XXXVII) CPC, against the defendant/petitioner herein before the trial court on the premise that he, the plaintiff/respondent herein as an Advocate by profession intended to purchase a parcel of land and in this regard the defendant/petitioner agreed to facilitate the purchase of the plot of land whereupon, the defendant/petitioner herein identified a parcel of land for sale to be purchase by the plaintiff/respondent herein against a sale consideration of Rs. 15,60,000/- in furtherance whereof an amount of Rs. 13,00000/- was paid through online banking by the plaintiff/respondent herein from his personal bank account as well as his wife’s bank account in the bank account of the defendant/petitioner herein, in lieu whereof, the defendant/petitioner executed a document/receipt as well. It also came to be averred in the suit by the plaintiff/respondent herein that post payment of the aforesaid part consideration as well as execution of the receipt thereof, the plaintiff/respondent herein approached the defendant/plaintiff for proper documentation of the land in order to give effect to the sale thereof, but the defendant/petitioner herein avoided the same and instead insisted for payment of balance sale consideration, as a consequence whereof, the plaintiff/respondent issued cheques in the name of the defendant/petitioner herein, where- after the plaintiff/respondent herein came to know that there is some dispute qua the land in question and upon being enquired from the defendant/plaintiff and his failure to give any satisfactory reply thereto, the plaintiff/respondent herein stopped the encashment of the cheques by dropping an email to the concerned bank. It came to be further averred by the plaintiff/respondent herein in the suit that the defendant/petitioner herein was approached thereafter repeatedly by him, the plaintiff/respondent herein, for return of the sale consideration received by him but he refused the same and instead avoided the plaintiff/respondent by using delay tactics, where after the plaintiff/respondent herein left with no option but to approach the court and file a suit. .

3. After the filing of the suit and summoning of the defendant/petitioner by the trial court, the defendant/petitioner preferred an application seeking leave to defend the suit, maintained on the premise that the suit under Order 37 CPC is not maintainable in the present form and that the court also lacks the territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as, the plaintiff/respondent herein in-fact received 6 Marlas of land from the defendant/petitioner herein and constructed a house thereon and though the plaintiff/respondent herein paid part of the sale consideration through online banking, issued three cheques in respect of balance sale consideration which cheques, however, got dishonored and, even after a demand made by the defendant/petitioner herein for the payment of the amount covered under the said cheques, the plaintiff/respondent herein failed to liquidate the said amount and instead chose to file the false and frivolous case.

4. The learned trial court after considering the said application filed by the defen