9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the grant of unconditional leave to defend in a summary suit, the admissibility of a promissory note, the requirement of producing original documents in a summary suit, and the discretion of the court in granting leave to defend. Grant of Unconditional Leave to Defend: The appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum advanced to the respondents, who allegedly executed a promissory note and issued cheques towards payment of interest. The High Court granted unconditional leave to defend, which the appellant challenged, contending that the suit was based on a bill of exchange and the court should have imposed conditions. Admissibility of Promissory Note: The respondents argued that the promissory note was not properly stamped, making it inadmissible as evidence. They claimed that a summary suit is not maintainable in such a case. Requirement of Original Documents in Summary Suit: In a summary suit, the original documents must typically be produced for obtaining a summary judgment. However, in this case, the original documents were misplaced, and the appellant had to prove their loss. The High Court granted unconditional leave to defend due to the unavailability of original documents. Discretion of the Court in Granting Leave to Defend: The court has the discretion to grant leave to defend in a summary suit based on the circumstances of the case. The court must consider whether the defense raised is substantial or merely illusory before passing a judgment. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant unconditional leave to defend in the summary suit. The court emphasized the importance of producing original documents in summary suits but acknowledged that in certain cases, the court may exercise discretion in granting leave to defend. The matter of imposing terms on the respondents was left for the High Court to reconsider.
|
