Written loan agreement prevails over alleged oral compromise, with leave to defend granted only on deposit condition.

The defendant's plea for leave to defend in the summary suit was assessed against the written agreement, which recorded the loan liability, repayment obligation and the effect of dishonoured cheques. The alleged later compromise in a separate company dispute was treated as unrelated to the suit transaction, and the claimed oral understanding could not vary or contradict the written terms. Although the defence was not found wholly illusory, it was not accepted as a complete answer to the claim. Leave to defend was therefore granted only on condition of deposit of the principal amount within four weeks.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant was entitled to leave to defend in the summary suit, and whether the defence based on an alleged later compromise and oral understanding raised a triable issue against the written agreement and dishonoured cheques.

Analysis: The defence founded on the compromise in the company dispute was held to be unrelated to the suit transaction. The written agreement of 15.11.2008 expressly recorded the loan liability, the repayment obligation, and the consequence of dishonour of the post-dated cheques. The alleged oral arrangement could not be used to vary or contradict the written agreement, and the defendant's attempt to link the suit claim with the compromise proceedings was found to be unconvincing. The court, however, found the defence not wholly illusory and permitted the defendant to proceed by granting leave on condition of deposit of the principal amount.

Conclusion: The defendant was granted leave to defend subject to deposit of the principal sum of Rs. 2,25,00,000 within four weeks.

---