Order 16

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 50/24
RAJESH GUPTA Vs. VINOD KUMAR
21.08.2025
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed by the
defendant under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC seeking leave to
defend the present summary suit filed by the plaintiff for
recovery of Rs. 60,000/- along with interest.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that in September
2021 the defendant, being in financial crisis, approached him for
financial help and accordingly the plaintiff advanced a friendly
loan of Rs. 60,000/- repayable within three months. It is the
further case of the plaintiff that a written loan agreement dated
10.09.2021 was executed between the parties. The plaintiff
claims that despite repeated demands and issuance of legal notice
dated 08.01.2024, the defendant failed to repay the loan. Hence,
the present suit under Order XXXVII CPC has been instituted.
3. The defendant has appeared in response to summons for
judgment and has filed the present application seeking leave to
defend. The defence of the defendant is that no loan transaction
ever took place. It is his case that the plaintiff had taken his
signatures and thumb impression on some blank/typed papers on
the pretext of preparing a PAN card, and has misused the same to
fabricate a false loan agreement dated 10.09.2021. The defendant
further contends that he never visited any Notary Public for
Contd….
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
execution of such an agreement and the alleged notarisation is
itself suspicious and requires evidence to be tested at trial.
4. The plaintiff, on the other hand, has opposed the
application, contending that the defence is sham, moonshine and
a concocted story merely to delay the proceedings.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record.
6. The law on grant of leave to defend under Order XXXVII
CPC has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IDBI
Trusteeship Services Ltd. vs. Hubtown Ltd. (2017) 1 SCC 568,
wherein it was held that if the defendant raises triable issues
indicating a fair or reasonable defence, unconditional leave to
defend ought to be granted. On the other hand, if the defence is
moonshine or illusory, leave to defend may be refused.
7. In the present case, the defendant has categorically denied
the loan transaction and alleged that the signatures/thumb
impression was obtained by fraud under the guise of preparing a
PAN card. He has further contended that he never appeared
before the Notary Public. The authenticity of the alleged
agreement dated 10.09.2021, therefore, becomes a material
question of fact. Whether the defendant actually executed the
agreement voluntarily or whether the same was fabricated after
misusing his signatures is a matter which cannot be decided
Contd….
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
without trial and evidence, including possible summoning of
notarial records.
8. Thus, the defence raised by the defendant cannot be said to
be sham or illusory at this stage. On the contrary, it discloses a
plausible defence and raises triable issues which require
adjudication after evidence.
9. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The defendant is
granted unconditional leave to defend the present suit.
10. Application disposed off, as allowed.
Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/21.08.2025(s)
-- 3 of 3 --