Summary suit decree cannot be sustained against a non-signatory to a cheque absent proof of joint liability.

The Respondent (Plaintiff) filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC for the recovery of ₹6,00,000/- against the Appellants (Defendants), who are husband and wife

The Plaintiff alleged that he provided a loan of ₹6,00,000/- to the Appellants on July 10, 2016

Appellant No. 1 (Smt. Laxmi Rawat) issued a post-dated cheque in 2016, which was later replaced by another cheque dated August 14, 2018, on the instructions of Appellant No. 2 (Sh. Dinesh Singh Rawat)

The 2018 cheque was returned unpaid with the remark "Account closed"

The Appellants sought leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC

Appellant No. 1 contended that the cheques were stolen in July 2016 after she was sedated by a stranger, an incident reported to the police

Appellant No. 2 denied any involvement in the transaction

The Trial Court (ADJ) dismissed the application for leave to defend, holding the "stolen cheque" defense to be moonshine, and decreed the suit against both Appellants

The Appellants challenged this judgment under Section 96 of the CPC

1. Whether the defense raised by Appellant No. 1 regarding the theft of signed cheques constituted a "substantial defense" necessitating the grant of leave to defend?

2. Whether Appellant No. 2 could be held liable for recovery in a summary suit based on a cheque signed exclusively by Appellant No. 1?

The court primarily applied the summary procedure under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), specifically Rule 3(5) regarding the conditions for granting leave to defend

It also exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 96 of the CPC

The court relied on the principle that in summary suits based on negotiable instruments, a defendant must disclose a triable issue or a fair/substantial defense to obtain leave; a defense that is an "afterthought" or lacks "cogent evidence" does not suffice to prevent a decree

Regarding Appellant No. 1, the Court found the defense of "stolen cheques" to be inherently unbelievable.

The alleged theft occurred in 2016, yet the cheque in question was dated August 14, 2018; the Court reasoned that it was "blatantly evident" that the defense was an afterthought intended to evade liability for a signed instrument

The Court concurred with the Trial Court that a person keeping signed blank cheques does so at their own peril and that claiming theft is a common but often baseless trend in recovery suits

However, regarding Appellant No. 2, the Court found that the suit was based on a document (the cheque) executed solely by Appellant No. 1

The Plaintiff’s claim that the loan was taken "jointly" was a "bald assertion" unsupported by evidence or cause of action against the husband

Since the summary suit was rooted in the cheque issued by the wife, the husband could not be held liable in the absence of his signature or a proven joint liability

It upheld the decree against Appellant No. 1 (Smt. Laxmi Rawat), affirming that her leave to defend was rightly dismissed as her defense lacked merit

Conversely, the Court allowed the leave to defend for Appellant No. 2 (Sh. Dinesh Singh Rawat) and simultaneously dismissed the recovery suit against him, holding that no cause of action was disclosed against him as he was not a signatory to the cheque

The decree of the Trial Court was modified to apply only to Appellant No. 1