Written settlement agreement and evidence rules defeated oral defence, preserving decree in summary suit and rejecting leave to defend.

In a summary suit, unconditional leave to defend is unavailable where the defendant's pleas do not raise a genuine triable issue. A written settlement agreement with clear instalment liability and an express clause on C-Forms controlled the parties' obligations, and Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act barred reliance on an alleged oral understanding that would vary that contract. The limitation plea also failed because the instalments were payable on future dates and the suit was filed within three years of default. The defences were treated as frivolous and vexatious, and the claim was decreed with interest and costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant had made out a substantial defence or genuine triable issue so as to obtain unconditional leave to defend in the summary suit, and whether the defences based on an alleged oral arrangement, non-payment linked to stock clearance, alleged absence of liability for C-Forms, and limitation could defeat the claim.

Analysis: The suit was founded on a written settlement agreement containing a clear liability to pay the balance amount in instalments and an express clause requiring the defendant to furnish C-Forms or else bear the differential sales tax, VAT, interest, penalties, and other loss incurred by the plaintiff. The claimed tax/VAT amount was supported by the plaintiff's payment to the sales tax authorities and was not specifically denied as to crystallisation. The alleged contemporaneous oral understanding about discounts or payment only after stock disposal was held to be legally impermissible in the face of the written agreement, because Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act bar proof of terms varying a written contract. The plea of limitation was rejected because the instalments became payable on future dates and the suit was filed within three years from the first default. Applying the principles governing summary suits and leave to defend, the defences were found to be frivolous and vexatious and not raising any genuine triable issue.

Conclusion: The defendant was not entitled to unconditional leave to defend, and the application for leave to defend was rejected. The plaintiff's claim was upheld, and the suit was decreed for the principal sums with interest and costs.

---