Order XIII-A summary judgment requires no real prospect of defence; limitation disputes can defeat summary disposal and bar conditional orders.

Order XIII-A summary judgment is available even where a suit was originally filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII and later converted into a commercial suit; the conversion does not deprive the plaintiff of both remedies or bar the application. The defendant's written statement may be considered to assess whether there is a real prospect of defence, and a limitation plea based on transaction dates and delayed demand can raise a substantial triable issue. Where the defence is not plainly untenable and factual questions require evidence, summary judgment is inappropriate. A conditional order is justified only when the claim may succeed but is unlikely to do so, or the defence is merely plausible but weak; otherwise no condition is required.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A was barred because the suit had originally been presented as a summary suit and later converted into a commercial suit; (ii) whether the defendants had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim in view of the defence of limitation and other pleaded objections; (iii) whether a conditional order under Order XIII-A ought to have been passed.

Issue (i): whether an application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A was barred because the suit had originally been presented as a summary suit and later converted into a commercial suit.

Analysis: The bar in Order XIII-A Rule 1(3) is meant to prevent a plaintiff from seeking a second attempt at summary adjudication after having already invoked Order XXXVII. It cannot be read to place a plaintiff in a worse position by depriving the suit of both remedies merely because a summary suit is converted into a commercial suit. The objection to maintainability was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The application for summary judgment was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the defendants had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim in view of the defence of limitation and other pleaded objections.

Analysis: The Court treated the written statement as available for consideration and noted that the suit-related transactions were of 2015, while the demand notice was issued only in 2019. The question whether limitation began from the due date, dishonour, or later demand raised a substantial triable issue. The plea based on the money-lending licence was not decisive for a claim founded on bills of exchange. On this material, the claim could not be said to be undefendable or to present no real prospect of defence.

Conclusion: The defendants did have a triable and substantial defence, and summary judgment was not warranted.

Issue (iii): whether a conditional order under Order XIII-A ought to have been passed.

Analysis: A conditional order is justified only where the claim may succeed but is improbable to do so, or where the defence is plausible but improbable. The Court found that the limitation defence and related factual controversies required evidence and did not justify imposing conditions such as deposit or security. The prerequisites for a conditional order were not satisfied.

Conclusion: No conditional order was required.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting summary judgment was upheld, and the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Summary judgment under Order XIII-A can be granted only where the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and a conditional order is permissible only where the claim may succeed but is improbable and the defence is merely plausible but weak.

---