IMPORTANT POINT
If the affidavit filed by the defendant plausibly discloses a triable issue, leave should be granted.

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1. The short point involved in this Special Leave Petition is whether the learned District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, had rightly dismissed the Petitioner’s application under Order XXXVII Rule 3, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) for leave to defend the suit filed by the Respondent under Order XXXVII for recovery of Rs.6,68,513/-, together with interest @18% per annum and pendente lite and future interest.

2. On account of business transactions, the Petitioner purchased iron sheets on credit from the Respondent on account whereof a sum of Rs.4,42,724/- became due and payable by the Petitioner to the Respondent. The Petitioner settled the accounts and acknowledged the liability in respect of the said amount. Thereafter, the Petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- dated 11th October, 2006, towards part-payment of the said dues which, according to the Respondent, was signed by one Pyare Lal, the sole proprietor of the Petitioner-firm. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured and a legal notice was, therefore, sent by the Respondent to the Petitioner for payment of the outstanding dues. Since, despite such notice the Petitioner failed to pay the said dues, the Respondent filed Suit No.57 of 2008 in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The Petitioner entered appearance in the Suit and filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 C.P.C., which was dismissed, as mentioned hereinabove.

3. In the said application for leave to defend the suit, the Petitioner contended that the cheque in question had been handed over by the Petitioner to the Respondent-firm by way of security only and not for presentation. Furthermore, the said cheque was issued by the Petitioner on 11th October, 2000, but the date of the cheque was, thereafter, interpolated and altered from 11.10.2000 to 11.10.2006, and presented to the Bank. It was also indicated that apart from the signature on the face of the cheque and the date mentioned therein, the rest of the cheque was blank and an attempt was made by the Respondent to misuse the same with the intention of withdrawing or misappropriating the amount subsequently inserted in the cheque. A specific allegation was also made to the effect that the date of the cheque issued on behalf of the Petitioner firm for the month of October was always written with the Roman numerical ‘X’, which was altered and shown in ordinary numericals, which clearly establish the fact that the cheque in question had been doctored to obtain the benefit thereof six years after the same had been issued.

4. In the said application, it was also denied that any cheque of such a large amount had been issued to the Respondent after 1992 in order to bolster the case of the Petitioner that the cheque in question had been forged. It was ultimately stated in the complaint that the Respondent had concocted the story and the Bills placed on record by the Respondent were also forged as the Petitioner had neither purchased any material nor counter-signed the last 4 bills as per the details provided.

5. Before us, the same submissions were reiterated and it was submitted that the learned trial court had wrongly dismissed the Petitioner’s application for leave to defend the suit, although, several triable issues had been raised. It was contended that the denial with regard to the validity of the cheque and receipt of goods, were triable issues, which could be decided only upon appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties. It was also urged that since the cheque was issued in 2000, the claim of the Respondent was also barred by limitation. It was submitted that not only had the learned District and Sessions Judge committed an error in rejecting the Petitioner’s application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 C.P.C., but that the High Court had also erred in affirming the said order.

6. On the other hand, it was the case of the Respon