1985 (3) TMI 318 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Genuineness of documents dated 12th September 1979 and 24th December 1976.
2. Question of limitation.
3. Jurisdiction of the court.
4. Right to unconditional leave to defend the suit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Genuineness of Documents Dated 12th September 1979 and 24th December 1976:

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant confirmed and unconditionally acknowledged a debt of Rs. 4,16,836.32p with agreed interest at 12% per annum through a writing dated 12th September 1979. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant sent a promissory note for the same amount, which was misplaced. The defendant denied these claims, stating that he had no business transactions with the plaintiff in his personal capacity and disputed the validity and genuineness of the documents. The defendant also alleged that the plaintiff used a blank letterhead to create these documents. The court noted that the entire case of the plaintiff relied on the document dated 12th September 1979, and if this document was found to be invalid, the entire suit would fail.

2. Question of Limitation:

The question of limitation was directly linked to the genuineness of the document dated 12th September 1979. If the document was proven genuine, it would affect the limitation period for filing the suit. The court acknowledged that the issue of limitation was a triable issue that could not be decided summarily and required a full trial.

3. Jurisdiction of the Court:

The defendant did not reside in Calcutta, and the suit was instituted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The jurisdiction of the court depended on whether any part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The plaintiff alleged that the writing dated 12th September 1979 was issued and received in Calcutta, which was contested by the defendant. The court recognized that the question of jurisdiction was also a triable issue that needed to be resolved through a full trial.

4. Right to Unconditional Leave to Defend the Suit:

The defendant argued that multiple triable issues were raised, and he should be granted unconditional leave to defend the suit. The court referred to several precedents, including the principles laid down in the case of Sm. Kiranmoyee Dassi v. Dr. J. Chatterjee, which stated that if a defendant raises a triable issue or shows a state of facts that may lead to a defense at trial, they are entitled to unconditional leave to defend. The court concluded that the defense raised by the defendant was not wholly illusory, sham, or practically moonshine and that the defendant should be allowed to defend the suit unconditionally.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed, and the order under appeal was set aside. The defendant was given unconditional leave to defend the suit. The court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits or the ultimate result of the suit. The defendant was directed to file the written statement within three weeks, and the suit was to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. There was no order as to costs.