https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306587 A defendant in a summary suit is entitled to leave to defend where a real triable issue is disclosed, and leave should be refused only if the defence is sham, illusory or moonshine. The disputed instrument was capable of being treated as an indemnity rather than an unconditional guarantee, which mattered because an indemnity claim ordinarily requires proof of loss. Serious pleas of fraud, collusion, missing bank records and discrepancies in the underlying documents were not effectively answered. As the claim did not plainly fall within the limited categories covered by Order 37 CPC, the defendants were entitled to defend the suit and leave to defend should not have been refused. en-us Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Aug 2025 11:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306587 A defendant in a summary suit is entitled to leave to defend where a real triable issue is disclosed, and leave should be refused only if the defence is sham, illusory or moonshine. The disputed instrument was capable of being treated as an indemnity rather than an unconditional guarantee, which mattered because an indemnity claim ordinarily requires proof of loss. Serious pleas of fraud, collusion, missing bank records and discrepancies in the underlying documents were not effectively answered. As the claim did not plainly fall within the limited categories covered by Order 37 CPC, the defendants were entitled to defend the suit and leave to defend should not have been refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306587