Summary suit on invoice-based written contract: vague defences warrant only conditional leave to defend, not unconditional leave.

An invoice-supported claim for the price of goods accepted by the defendant can fall within summary procedure as a debt on a written contract, even if the contract is not signed by both parties. A vague denial and an unsupported plea of repayment do not raise a substantial defence; at most, they justify conditional leave to defend rather than unconditional leave. The challenge to the plaintiff's status as a registered firm also did not disclose a real triable issue. The refusal of leave to defend was set aside and conditional leave was granted, and the consequential decree did not render the revision infructuous.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revision petition became infructuous after the decree in the summary suit was passed; (ii) whether the plaintiff's claim was maintainable as a summary suit on a written contract and whether the defendants had raised any triable issue warranting unconditional leave to defend; (iii) whether the dispute regarding the plaintiff's status as a registered firm raised a triable issue.

Issue (i): whether the revision petition became infructuous after the decree in the summary suit was passed.

Analysis: An order refusing leave to defend in a summary suit operates as the basis for the consequential decree. If the refusal order is found to be erroneous and is set aside, the decree passed as a consequence of that order is also rendered ineffective, even if no separate appeal has been filed against the decree. The revision, therefore, had to be decided on its own merits.

Conclusion: The revision petition did not become infructuous.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff's claim was maintainable as a summary suit on a written contract and whether the defendants had raised any triable issue warranting unconditional leave to defend.

Analysis: A contract in writing for the purpose of the summary procedure need not be a document signed by both parties. Where goods are supplied and accepted on the basis of an invoice or written bill, the demand for the price can arise on a written contract. The defendants' denial was not supported by particulars, and the bare assertion of repayment without details did not disclose a substantial defence. The admitted liability, at most, justified conditional leave to defend rather than an unconditional one.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable under the summary procedure, but the defendants were entitled only to conditional leave to defend.

Issue (iii): whether the dispute regarding the plaintiff's status as a registered firm raised a triable issue.

Analysis: The plaint itself contained the details of registration of the firm, and the challenge to that status did not disclose any real triable issue.

Conclusion: No triable issue arose on the plaintiff's status as a registered firm.

Final Conclusion: The order wholly refusing leave to defend was set aside and substituted by an order granting conditional leave to defend on deposit of the specified amount, with the suit to proceed on merits upon compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summary suit, an invoice-supported claim arising from acceptance of goods may constitute a debt on a written contract, and where the defence is vague or unsupported by particulars, unconditional leave to defend may be refused and conditional leave imposed; an erroneous refusal order can also carry the consequential decree with it.

---