Rajat Kumar And Anr vs Gurinder Kaur

CR-6606-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
128 CR-6606-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.09.2026
Rajat Kumar and another
....Petitioners
Vs.
Gurinder Kaur through General Power of Attorney
....Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Tejas Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*
HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral)
1. Present revision petition filed, under Article 227 of Constitution
of India , for setting aside the order dated 06.07.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed
by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, to the limited extent
whereby the learned Trial Court, while allowing the petitioners' application
under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC, for leave to defend, has made the said leave
subject to the condition that the petitioners shall furnish a bank guarantee or
fixed deposit in the sum of Rs. 16,53,428/-, being the entire principal sum
claimed in the suit.
2. Briefly, the respondent/plaintiff (Gurinder Kaur) filed a suit
under Order 37 of CPC for recovery of Rs. 17,19,565/- (Rs. 16,53,428/- as
principal amount and Rs. 66,137/- as interest calculated with effect from
26.03.2025 upto 24.05.2025 calculated @ 2% per month) along with
pendente lite and future interest on the basis of cheque issued by the present
ANKIT
2026.09.09 10:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-6606-2026 (O&M) -2-
petitioner No.1 (Rajat Kumar) being proprietor of present petitioner No. 2
i.e. M/s Rihaan Vihaan Transport Company for and against the purchase of
diesel, lubricants, etc. in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in discharge of his
liability.
3. It appears that the present petitioners were proceeded against
ex-parte in the aforesaid suit on 03.11.2025. However, subsequently, upon an
application being filed by the petitioners for setting aside the ex-parte
proceedings, the learned Trial Court set aside the ex-parte order dated
03.11.2025. On 17.04.2026, the petitioners filed an application (Annexure
P-12) under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC seeking unconditional leave to defend the
suit, inter alia , on the following grounds:-
(i) that the respondent had taken several blank signed
cheques by way of security and had misused the same;
(ii) that the accounts of the father and the brother of
petitioner No. 1 had wrongly been merged into the
account of the petitioners;
(iii) that an earlier blank signed cheque, being cheque No.
000019, had similarly been filled in for Rs. 17,87,745/-
and, on the matter being taken up before a panchayat, the
respondent had assured that it would not be misused; and
(iv) that payments of Rs. 1,50,000/-made on 03.02.2025 and
Rs. 2,00,000/- made on 05.03.2025 had not been credited
in the respondent's books of account.
3.1 The aforesaid application filed by the petitioners was opposed
by respondent/plaintiff by filing its reply (Annexure P-13).
3.2 The Learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the application
(Annexure P-12), allowed the same vide the impugned order dated
06.07.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby leave to defend has been granted to the
ANKIT
2026.09.09 10:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-6606-2026 (O&M) -3-
petitioners; however, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall
furnish a bank guarantee or fixed deposit in the sum of Rs. 16,53,428/-, on
or before 21.08.2026.
4. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioners have
preferred the present civil revision petition before this Court.
5. In para No.2 of the present civil revision petition, following
averments has been made:-
“2. That the present petition is confined only to the aforesaid
condition. The petitioners are not, by the present petition,
questioning the grant of leave to defend, which has
rightly been granted in their favour.”
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
perused the paperbook with his able assistance.
7. In the present case, the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit
under Order 37 CPC seeking recovery of Rs. 17,19,535/- on the basis of a
cheque issued by the present petitioners to the respondent/plaintiff on
account of purchase of diesel, lubricants, etc. (as detailed in the plaint).
7.1 In the aforesaid suit, the present petitioners appeared and filed
an application under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC seeking leave to defend, which
has been granted by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated
06.07.2026 (Annexure P-1), however, subject to the condition that the
petitioners shall furnish a bank guarantee or fixed deposit in the sum of Rs.
16,53,428/- on or before 21.08.2026. The relevant extract of the impugned
order dated 06.07.2026 (Annexure P-1) reads as under:
“5. After considering the submissions made by both the
counsel for the parties, since the defendants themselves
ANKIT
2026.09.09 10:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-6606-2026 (O&M) -4-
admitted business dealings with the plaintiff and admitted that
diesel/petrol/ lubricants were being purchased from the plaintiff
from time to time on cash and credit basis. Therefore, the
underlying commercial relationship between the parties stands
admitted. Prima facie, the material produced by the plaintiff
shows supply of petrol/diesel against acknowledgments in the
ordinary course of business, maintenance of a running
ledger/account in respect of those transactions and thereafter
issuance of the cheque in question for the amount reflected in
the said business record. The plaintiff has also placed on record
the WhatsApp group chat between the plaintiff's representative
and the defendants' side, including the sons and father
supported by an affidavit/certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act (Section 63 of BSA), wherein details of
supplies, amounts and vehicle numbers were intimated and the
same have not been specifically denied by the defendants. Thus,
the plaintiff's claim is supported by a clear commercial chain,
namely acknowledged supplies, electronic communication,
ledger/account entries and the cheque amount corresponding
thereto. The contention that cheque in question was only a
blank security cheque is unsupported by any material. No
written demand for return of the alleged security cheques, no
written protest, no stop-payment of any instruction, no
complaint and no settlement document have been brought on
record. The contention regarding the alleged earlier misuse of
cheque No.000019 and alleged intervention of a panchayat is
equally unsupported. There is no panchayat writing, no
complaint, no notice, no reply and no affidavit of any
independent person. The alleged payments of Rs. 1,50,000/-and
Rs.2,00,000/- are matters capable of exact documentary proof
through bank statements, card statements, transaction
references or account confirmations, yet no such material has
been filed, which was to be the best available prima facie
ANKIT
2026.09.09 10:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-6606-2026 (O&M) -5-
evidence to prove the prima facie defence by the defendants.
Further, the contention of learned counsel for the defendant that
the plaintiff has wrongly mixed the account of defendant No.1
with the accounts of his brother and father is also vague and
unsupported by any separate books of account, reconciliation
statement, invoice by segregation of tax/account record.
6. Thus, the leave application is founded upon bald
assertions. Mere use of expressions such as security cheque,
manipulated accounts, etc. does not create a substantial
defence or genuine triable issue in the absence of supporting
material, where the prima facie, the plaintiff firm supplied
petrol/diesel against acknowledgments, the running
ledger/account reflects the liability arising therefrom, the
WhatsApp group chat supported by Section 65B certificate
(Section 63 BSA) corroborates the supplies and transaction
details, thereafter the cheque in question was stated to be issued
for the corresponding amount shown in the business record. But
still is not a stage where the defendant should not have any
opportunity to prove his version bcause as per well settled case
law titled as B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. Vs. JMS Steels &
Power Corporation Court: Supreme Court of India 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 59 , in which it is held that in Order 37 summary
suits, grant of leave to defend is ordinarily the rule and denial
is the exception, but the defendant must still disclose a genuine
and substantial defence. Bald assertions without supporting
material do not entitle a defendant to unconditional leave,
where defence is weak, leave may be declined or strictly
controlled.
7. As a consequence of the above discussions, the
application in hand is hereby allowed and leave to defend is
hereby granted to the applicants-defendants, subject to
furnishing bank guarantee or fixed deposit in the sum of
ANKIT
2026.09.09 10:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-6606-2026 (O&M) -6-
₹
16,53,428/- on or before 21.8.2026. The application stands
disposed of accordingly.”
7.2 A bare perusal of the above-extracted order dated 06.07.2026
(Annexure P-1) would show, although the present petitioners had founded
their application for leave to defend on bald assertions without
demonstrating a substantial defence or genuine triable issue; the learned
Trial Court still granted leave to defend, considering the settled law that
grant of leave to defend is ordinarily the rule and denial thereof is an
exception. At the same time, the learned Trial Court has observed that the
bald assertions of the petitioners, without any supporting material do not
entitle them to unconditional leave. Accordingly, leave to defend has been
granted subject to the petitioners furnishing a bank guarantee or fixed
deposit in the sum of Rs. 16,53,428/- on or before 21.08.2026.
8. Apparently, the present civil revision petition has been filed on
31.08.2026 i.e. beyond the period of 21.08.2026, up to which the petitioners
were called upon to furnish a bank guarantee or fixed deposit.
9. Be that as it may, the principles on which application for leave
to defend has to be examined are laid down in the celebrated judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of “Mechalec Engineering and Manufacturer v.
Basic Equipment Corporation”, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 577 . Following
principles were laid down in this case :-
(a) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good
defence to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not
entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is
entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
ANKIT
2026.09.09 10:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-6606-2026 (O&M) -7-
(b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he
has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence although not
a positively good defence the plaintiff is not entitled to
sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to
unconditional leave to defend.
(c) If the defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed
sufficient to entitle him to defend that is to say, although
the affidavit does not positively and immediately make it
clear that he had a defence, yet shows such a state of
facts as leads to the inference that at the trial of the action
he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff's
claim the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment and the
defendant is entitled to leave to defend but in such a case
the Court may in its discretion impose conditions as to
the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into Court
or furnishing security.
(d) If the defendant has no defence or the defence set up is
illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinarily
the plaintiff is entitled to have to sign judgment and the
defendant is not entitled to leave to defend.
(e) If the defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory
or sham or practically moonshine then although
ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign
judgment, the Court may protect the plaintiff by only
allowing the defence to proceed if the amount claimed is
paid into Court or otherwise secured and give leave to the
defendant on such condition, and thereby show mercy to
the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence.
9.1 Hon'ble Apex Court in case of “M/s. V.K. Enterprises v. M/s.
Shiva Steels”, 2010(4) RCR (civil) 365 ; observed as under:-
“8. Order 37 C.P.C. has been included in the Civil Procedure
Code in order to allow a person, who has a clear and
ANKIT
2026.09.09 10:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-6606-2026 (O&M) -8-
undisputed claim in respect of any monetary dues, to recover
the dues quickly by a summary procedure instead of taking the
long route of a regular suit. The Courts have consistently held
that if the affidavit filed by the defendant discloses a triable
issue that is at least plausible, leave should be granted, but
when the defence raised appears to be moonshine and sham,
unconditional leave to defend cannot be granted. What is
required to be examined for grant of leave is whether the
defence taken in the application under Order 37 Rule 3 C.P.C.
makes out a case, which if established, would be a plausible
defence in a regular suit. In matters relating to dishonour of
cheques, the aforesaid principle becomes more relevant as the
cheques are issued normally for liquidation of dues which are
admitted. In the instant case, the defence would have been
plausible had it not been for the fact that the allegations
relating to the interpolation of the cheque is without substance
and the ledger accounts relating to the dues, clearly
demonstrated that such dues had been settled between the
parties. Moreover, the issuance of the cheque had never been
disputed on behalf of the Petitioner whose case was that the
same had been given on account of security and not for
presentation, but an attempt had been made to misuse the same
by dishonest means.
9. Against such cogent evidence produced by the
plaintiff/respondent, there is only an oral denial which is not
supported by any corroborative evidence from the side of the
Petitioner. On the other hand, the ledger book maintained by
the Respondent and settled by the Petitioner had been produced
on behalf of the Respondent in order to prove the transactions
in respect of which the cheque in question had been issued by
the Petitioner.
10. In our view, the defence raised by the Petitioner does not
make out any triable issue and the High Court, has dealt with
ANKIT
2026.09.09 10:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-6606-2026 (O&M) -9-
the matter correctly and has justifiably rejected the Petitioner's
application under Order 37 Rule 3 C.P.C. and the same does
not call for interference by this Court. The Special Leave
Petition is, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to
costs.”
10. Having considered the matter in the light of aforementioned
judicial pronouncement, I am of considered view, that the learned Trial
Court, upon appreciation of the matter before it, has rightly granted
conditional leave to defend in terms of provisions contained in Order 37
Rule 3(5) CPC, which clearly permits the learned Trial Court to grant leave
to defend either unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the
Court to be just.
11. In view of the above discussion, I see no compelling reason
which may warrant interference by this Court in the present proceedings.
Resultantly, the present civil revision petition fails and same is accordingly,
dismissed .
12. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(HARSH BUNGER)
03.09.2026 JUDGE
Ankit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
ANKIT
2026.09.09 10:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh