Defective goods defence fails in a summary suit where receipt is admitted but rejection or return is not shown.

In a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, a plea that goods were defective will not by itself justify leave to defend where the defendant admits receipt of the goods but produces no material showing timely rejection or return. Applying Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, retention of delivered goods without prompt intimation of rejection amounts to deemed acceptance. On that basis, the defence was treated as neither substantial nor bona fide and no genuine triable issue was found; the refusal of leave to defend and the decree were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defence of defective goods raised in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 disclosed a genuine triable issue so as to justify leave to defend.

Analysis: The defendants admitted the business transactions and receipt of goods but did not produce any material showing intimation to the seller that the goods were rejected or that the alleged defective goods had been returned. Under Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, a buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods if, after delivery, he retains them without intimating rejection within a reasonable time. In the absence of any documentary support, the plea of defective goods did not displace the plaintiff's claim. Applying the principles governing leave to defend in a summary suit, the defence was found to be neither substantial nor bona fide and did not raise a genuine triable issue.

Conclusion: The defence was rejected as frivolous and vexatious, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The decree in the summary suit was left undisturbed, and the appellants were not entitled to relief against the refusal of leave to defend.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summary suit, a defendant who admits receipt of goods but fails to show timely rejection or return of the goods under Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 does not raise a genuine triable issue and is not entitled to leave to defend on a mere allegation of defectiveness.

---