Defendant Cannot Rely On Vague Statements While Pursuing Leave To Defend In Summary Suit: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that a defendant cannot rely on unsubstantiated and vague statements while offering his leave to defend in a summary suit procedure.

Justice Sanjay Dhar while dealing with a cheque bounce case noted that the appellant had admitted signing the cheque but failed to provide any substantial evidence proving that the cheque was not meant for the respondent. The court held that a mere statement that the cheque was issued to another person is insufficient to disprove the allegations made by the respondent.

The appellant had admitted to issuing the cheque but claimed it was given to Defendant No. 2, his close friend, to help him operate his bank account.

The court observed that no corroborative material had been placed on record with the application seeking leave to defend by the appellant to support such a plea.

The court said that the trial court cannot be said to have committed any fault, error, or perversity in declining leave to defend the suit to the appellant herein and consequently passing a decree in favor of the respondent in terms of the provisions of Order 37 CPC.

The court relied on Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers vs. Basic Equipment Corporation to hold that a defense must be "real" and not "sham or illusory."

The counsel for the appellant had challenged the order of the trial court, contending that the defense set up by him before the trial court in the application seeking leave to defend was plausible and credible. However, the same had not been taken into consideration by the trial court, which rejected it without any lawful justification. The counsel argued that the order was passed erroneously and suffered from judicial impropriety.

However, the court rejected the above arguments, stating that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and directed the appellant to deposit the decreed amount to the respondent with interest.

Background

The respondent had initially filed a suit before the trial court under Order 37 of the CPC against Appellant/Defendant No. 1 and another respondent/Defendant No. 2 regarding a real estate transaction. The respondent alleged that the defendants, who were engaged in real estate dealings, had promised to sell him a piece of land and that he had paid ₹10 lakhs as token money for the land.

However, the defendants neither transferred the land nor returned the money. Upon realizing that the land did not belong to the defendants, the plaintiff demanded a refund. The defendant issued a cheque for ₹10 lakhs, which bounced due to insufficient funds, and despite multiple requests, the defendants failed to make the payment, leading to the filing of the suit. The trial court dismissed the defendants' applications for leave to defend and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff/respondent.

APPEARANCE:

Shuja-ul-haq Advocate. For Petitioners

Shakir Haqani, Advocate For Respondents

Case-Title: Farukh Jehanzeb Vs Muzaffar Ali Kapra And Anr

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 96

Click Here To Read/Download Order