A defendant in a summary suit is entitled to conditional leave to defend if they raise triable issues regarding the legitimacy of debt confirmation documents, despite admitting to signatures.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The defendants in a summary suit, having failed in their attempt to seek unconditional leave to defend the suit, are the appellants herein, challenging the judgment passed in the suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. I have heard Mr.K.Premkumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Mr.J.Elanjchezien, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.

3. The plaint in brief:

(a) The plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 have been friends from 2015. The defendants 1 and 2 are blood sisters and the 3^rd defendant is their cousin brother. The 5^th defendant is the maternal uncle of the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants represented to the plaintiff that they were running a Beauty Parlor and were in need of money for development of their business, borrowed monies on several occasions from the plaintiff, and in all, the defendants 1 and 2 have received a principal sum of Rs.12 lakhs. Initially the defendants 1 and 2 were prompt in repayment of interest at the rate of 2% per month.

(b) The 3^rd defendant borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and repaid the same. In December 2022, the 1^st defendant introduced the defendants 4 and 5 and requested the plaintiff to give a loan to the defendants 4 and 5. Trusting the 1^st defendant, the plaintiff lent Rs.6 lakhs to the defendants 4 and 5. The plaintiff believed the representations of the 3^rd defendant that she was living in a luxurious house and her husband was doing silver article business. The plaintiff without even any security lent the money. From August 2022, the defendant failed to pay even interest on Rs.12 lakhs. Thereafter, after much pursuation, on 25.03.2023, the defendants 1 and 2 executed a debt confirmation document, thereby admitting their liability of Rs.12 lakhs being the principal and accrued interest. Though the defendants 1 and 2 promised to repay the same within three months, excepting for payment of Rs.25,000/- on 25.06.2023, the defendants 1 and 2 have not made any further payment. The debt confirmation document was witnessed by none else than the mother and maternal uncle of the defendants 1 and 2.

(c) The plaintiff further states that the defendants 1 and 2, along with their mother, came to the plaintiff's residence on 07.08.2023 and requested further time for settlement, at which point of time, the defendants 3 and 4 trespassed into the house of the plaintiff and abused the plaintiff in filthy language and issued threats with dire consequences. The plaintiff has lodged a police complaint on 08.08.2023 and again on 09.08.2023. Joining hands with the defendants 3 and 4, with a view to cheat the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 have taken a somersault and stated that they are liable to pay only Rs.6 lakhs. The police complaint was closed, directing the parties to workout their remedy in the appropriate forum. The plaintiff is therefore constrained to file the suit for recovering a sum of Rs.13,25,000/-, together with future interest and costs.

4. The suit was filed as a summary suit, invoking Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants 1 and 2 therefore took out I.A.No.6 of 2023, seeking unconditional leave to defend the suit. In the said application, the defendants had stated that the plaintiff, and her husband are doing money lending business, charging exorbitant interest without any statutory license issued by the competent authority. The 2^nd defendant was introduced to the plaintiff by her brother and initially, the 2^nd defendant borrowed only Rs.50,000/- on 20.11.2017 and another sum of Rs.2 lakhs on 25.03.2016 for meeting her marriage expenses. At that point