Summary suit on invoices upheld where buyer retained goods without timely rejection and no triable defence was shown.

A summary suit based on invoices was held maintainable under Order 37 CPC because the plaint expressly invoked that procedure and the invoices constituted written contracts; a reference to a statement of account did not defeat maintainability. The defence of defective goods failed because the buyer had received, used and retained the goods for a substantial period without timely rejection, attracting acceptance under Sections 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. As no good, fair or substantial defence was disclosed, unconditional leave to defend was refused and the invoice-based claim was upheld with interest and costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was maintainable as a summary suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of invoices and the plaint heading complied with the procedural requirements; (ii) Whether the defence that the goods supplied were defective disclosed a bona fide or triable issue in view of the buyer's receipt, use and retention of the goods; (iii) Whether the application for leave to defend disclosed any substantial defence warranting unconditional leave.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was maintainable as a summary suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of invoices and the plaint heading complied with the procedural requirements.

Analysis: The plaint expressly described the action as a suit under Order 37 and the claim was founded on 20 invoices evidencing supply of goods and the balance remaining unpaid. A mere reference to a statement of account did not alter the true nature of the claim. Invoices were treated as written contracts for the purpose of Order 37, and the procedural objection based on the plaint heading was found to be without merit.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable under Order 37, and the procedural objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the defence that the goods supplied were defective disclosed a bona fide or triable issue in view of the buyer's receipt, use and retention of the goods.

Analysis: The Court found that the goods had been received over a substantial period, used for packaging, and not rejected within a reasonable time. Under Sections 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, a buyer is entitled to examine goods on delivery, but if the goods are retained and acted upon without timely rejection, acceptance is deemed. The alleged complaints and letters were treated as unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the defendant's conduct, including part-payment and continued utilisation of the goods.

Conclusion: The defence of defective goods was held to be sham and did not raise a triable issue.

Issue (iii): Whether the application for leave to defend disclosed any substantial defence warranting unconditional leave.

Analysis: Applying the settled principles governing leave to defend in summary suits, the Court held that the defendant had not disclosed a good defence, a fair defence, or facts sufficient to entitle it to defend. The objections on maintainability, alleged defects, and reliance on an account statement were found meritless, while the claim remained a liquidated demand supported by invoices.

Conclusion: Unconditional leave to defend was not warranted and the application was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The defendant failed to establish any plausible defence against the invoice-based claim, the summary suit was maintainable, and judgment followed in favour of the plaintiff for the decretal amount with interest and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summary suit founded on invoices constituting a written contract, a buyer who receives, uses, and retains goods without timely rejection is deemed to have accepted them, and a plea of defective goods unsupported by prompt rejection or credible material does not entitle the defendant to leave to defend.

---