Leave to defend in a summary suit can be refused where the defence is inconsistent and raises no credible triable issue.
A leave to defend application in a summary suit may be refused where the defence is inconsistent with the party's own earlier stand and does not disclose a credible triable issue. The alleged misuse of blank cheques was found implausible because it conflicted with the appellant's earlier statement in Section 138 proceedings and was unsupported by any contemporaneous complaint or action against the alleged third party. The court treated the defence as a mere moonshine and upheld dismissal of leave to defend, thereby confirming the summary decree proceedings.
Issues: Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the appellant's leave to defend application in the summary suit for recovery.
Analysis: The defence that the cheques were not issued to the plaintiff but were handed over blank to a third party was found inconsistent with the appellant's earlier statement in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant also failed to show any contemporaneous action against the alleged third party for non-return or misuse of the cheques. On these facts, the plea that the cheques were misused was held to be implausible and devoid of merit, leaving no real defence requiring trial.
Conclusion: The dismissal of the leave to defend application was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the summary decree proceedings stood confirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: A leave to defend application in a summary suit can be refused where the defence is inconsistent with the party's own earlier stand and is shown to be a mere moonshine without a credible triable issue.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
