Article 227 restraint in summary suits: conditional leave to defend upheld where defence appeared improbable and liability was presumed.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked against an order granting conditional leave to defend in a summary suit where a statutory revisional remedy under Section 115 CPC is available. The court also noted that a conditional deposit may be justified when the defence to the suit and cheque liability appears highly improbable, especially where there is inconsistency in the stand taken, an admission of dealings in Section 138 proceedings, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and no credible material of fraud or misrepresentation. On that basis, the conditional order requiring deposit of 50% of the suit amount was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable against an order granting conditional leave to defend in a summary suit; (ii) whether the trial court was justified in directing deposit of 50% of the suit amount as a condition for granting leave to defend.

Issue (i): whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable against an order granting conditional leave to defend in a summary suit.

Analysis: A challenge to an order granting leave to defend in a summary suit is ordinarily redressable by a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Where a statutory remedy is available under the Code, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not to be invoked as a substitute. The availability of the revisional remedy, therefore, weighed against maintainability.

Conclusion: The petition under Article 227 was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the trial court was justified in directing deposit of 50% of the suit amount as a condition for granting leave to defend.

Analysis: The defence raised against the suit and the cheque liability was found to be highly improbable. The court relied on the inconsistency in the petitioner's stand, the admission of dealings in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of that Act, and the absence of any credible material showing fraud or misrepresentation. In that background, the conditional order passed while granting leave to defend was treated as a proper exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The direction to deposit 50% of the suit amount was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the conditional leave to defend order failed, and the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory revisional remedy is available against a discretionary order in a summary suit, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should not be invoked, and a conditional leave to defend order based on an improbable defence and statutory presumption of liability will not be interfered with.

---