Unconditional leave to defend a summary suit cannot be granted if a portion of the claim is undisputed.

The Petitioner (Original Plaintiff) filed a Summary Suit (No. 11/2015) for the recovery of ₹30,02,000/- against the Respondent for steel items supplied.

The Respondent filed an application (Exhibit-37) seeking leave to defend the suit, primarily disputing a single invoice (No. S054) for ₹4,45,765/- dated 22.09.2012, alleging it was fraudulent.

The Trial Court granted unconditional leave to defend to the Respondent.

The Petitioner challenged this order, contending that since only one invoice was specifically disputed, the remaining amount was effectively admitted, and leave should have been conditional upon depositing the undisputed sum.

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in granting unconditional leave to defend when the defendant specifically disputed only a portion of the total claim while remaining silent or vague on the rest.

Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding summary suits.

Landmark principles established in IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited v. Hubtown Limited, AIR 2016 SC 5321, specifically Clause 'f', which mandates that if any part of the claim is admitted, leave to defend shall not be granted unless the admitted amount is deposited.

B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. v. JMS Steels and Power Corporation, AIR 2022 SC 785, which reiterates that in cases of admitted liability, deposit of the sum is a prerequisite for granting leave to defend.

The High Court observed that in the application for leave to defend and the subsequent affidavit-in-reply, the Respondent’s specific pleadings only challenged Invoice No. S054 for ₹4,45,765/-.

Despite the Respondent's oral arguments claiming the entire amount was disputed, the written pleadings failed to raise a specific or substantial defense against the remaining balance of ₹25,56,235/-.

The Court reasoned that under the principles of Hubtown Limited, a "triable issue" only existed regarding the one disputed invoice.

For the remainder of the claim, which appeared prima facie undisputed due to the lack of specific denial, the Trial Court erred by not imposing a condition of deposit.

The court distinguished the precedents cited by the Respondent, noting they did not involve instances where a portion of the claim was effectively admitted through selective pleading.

The Respondent is entitled to defend the suit only upon depositing the undisputed amount of ₹25,56,235/- in the Trial Court within four weeks.

The Petitioner is not permitted to withdraw this deposit, which shall abide by the final outcome of the suit. Rule was made absolute in these terms.