Defendant Ordered to Deposit Rs. 2.25 Crore Within 4 Weeks for Case Progression

The court required the defendant to deposit the principal amount of Rs. 2.25 Crore within four weeks to proceed with the case. The defendant's defenses were deemed illusory, but he was granted leave to defend on the condition of the deposit. The court emphasized the enforceability of the written agreement dated 15.11.2008 and held the defendant liable independently of disputes in M/s SPL.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for leave to defend under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of the CPC.
2. Allegations and defenses raised by the defendant.
3. The impact of previous settlements and agreements on the current suit.
4. The validity and enforceability of the written agreement dated 15.11.2008.
5. The nature and purpose of the post-dated cheques (PDCs) issued by the defendant.
6. The relevance of the compromise in CS (OS) 1148/2008 to the current dispute.
7. The defendant's liability under the written agreement and the cheques issued.
8. The admissibility of oral agreements to contradict the written agreement.
9. The timeline and statute of limitations for filing the suit.
10. The conditions for granting leave to defend.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Leave to Defend:
The defendant filed an application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of the CPC for leave to defend in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2.25 Crore with interest. The defendant sought unconditional leave to defend, alleging various defenses.

2. Allegations and Defenses Raised by the Defendant:
The defendant alleged that the plaintiff and his wife, along with two other individuals, formed a company named M/s Saj Properties Limited (M/s SPL) to exploit the real estate market. The defendant claimed that the loan amount in question was part of an investment in M/s SPL and that the written agreement dated 15.11.2008 was subject to an oral understanding. The defendant also alleged that the suit was time-barred and that the PDCs were issued as security.

3. Impact of Previous Settlements and Agreements:
The court examined whether the settlement in CS (OS) 1148/2008 among the directors of M/s SPL had any bearing on the agreement dated 15.11.2008. The compromise deed in CS (OS) 1148/2008 did not refer to the dispute raised in the current suit and was limited to disputes among the directors of M/s SPL.

4. Validity and Enforceability of the Written Agreement:
The court found that the written agreement dated 15.11.2008 was self-sufficient and unequivocally recorded the defendant's liability to repay the loan amount. The agreement did not mention any oral understanding or condition related to the defendant's wife's share in M/s SPL.

5. Nature and Purpose of the PDCs:
The defendant admitted to issuing five PDCs for Rs. 45 Lac each, which were dishonored. The court noted that the agreement explicitly stated that the cheques were given in advance and that the defendant agreed to suffer proceedings if the cheques were not honored.

6. Relevance of the Compromise in CS (OS) 1148/2008:
The court held that the compromise in CS (OS) 1148/2008 did not absolve the defendant of his liability under the agreement dated 15.11.2008. The compromise was limited to disputes among the directors of M/s SPL and did not cover personal agreements or liabilities.

7. Defendant's Liability:
The court concluded that the defendant's liability under the written agreement dated 15.11.2008 was independent of the disputes in M/s SPL. The defendant could not claim any adjustment based on hypothetical amounts payable to his wife or losses incurred in a separate land deal.

8. Admissibility of Oral Agreements:
The court cited precedents, including Roop Kumar vs. Mohan Thedani and Yash Chhabra vs. Maya Jain, to emphasize that oral pleas contradicting a written agreement are not tenable under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court rejected the defendant's oral pleas as they had no foundation in the written agreement.

9. Timeline and Statute of Limitations:
The court did not find merit in the defendant's claim that the suit was time-barred, as the agreement explicitly provided a three-year repayment period from 15.11.2008.

10. Conditions for Granting Leave to Defend:
The court found the defendant's defenses to be illusory and inconsistent with his statements in other proceedings. However, the court allowed the defendant to proceed on the condition that he deposits the principal amount of Rs. 2.25 Crore with the Registrar General of the Court within four weeks.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the application for leave to defend by requiring the defendant to deposit the principal amount of Rs. 2.25 Crore. The written statement was to be filed within four weeks thereafter, and the case was listed for compliance and completion of pleadings. The court emphasized that the written agreement dated 15.11.2008 was enforceable and that the defendant's liability was independent of the disputes in M/s SPL.

---