Summary suit service and triable issue principles justify unconditional leave to defend where summons were not duly served.

In summary suits, the limitation period for seeking leave to defend does not begin unless summons is duly served; unreliable service returns and an unconvincing process-server endorsement were held insufficient to prove due service. The defendants therefore retained the right to apply for leave. The Court also applied the settled summary-suit test that a defendant need only disclose facts which, if proved, would constitute a plausible defence. As the affidavits showed a triable issue regarding the character of the hundis and the account adjustments, unconditional leave to defend was warranted and no cash deposit or other condition was justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the summons in the summary suits had been duly served so as to bar the defendants' applications for leave to appear and defend. (ii) Whether the defendants had shown a triable issue entitling them to unconditional leave to defend.

Issue (i): Whether the summons in the summary suits had been duly served so as to bar the defendants' applications for leave to appear and defend.

Analysis: The service returns were scrutinised under the provisions governing service of summons and were found unreliable. The Court treated the process-server's endorsement as evidence but not as conclusive proof of due service, and held that technical compliance with the service rules was insufficient where the return itself inspired disbelief. Since the summons had not in fact been duly served, the ten-day limitation for applying for leave to defend did not begin to run, and the defendants' right to seek leave was not lost.

Conclusion: The summons had not been duly served, and the defendants' applications were not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants had shown a triable issue entitling them to unconditional leave to defend.

Analysis: On the affidavits, the defendants disclosed a plausible defence that the hundis were collateral securities arising out of monetary transactions and adjustment of accounts. Applying the settled test for summary suits, the Court held that the defence need only present facts which, if proved, would afford a good or plausible answer to the claim. The material was sufficient to raise a triable issue, and no condition or cash deposit was warranted.

Conclusion: The defendants were entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary objection was overruled, leave to appear was granted, and the defendants were permitted to contest the suits on the merits without conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where summons in a summary suit is not duly served, the limitation period for seeking leave to defend does not commence, and if the defendant further discloses a triable issue, unconditional leave to defend should be granted.

---