Kishore Kapoor vs Surinder Kamar Bansal
2010 Latest Caselaw 1840 Del

     *            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                         Date of Reserve: March 04, 2010
                                                             Date of Order: April 08, 2010
+ CM(M) 630/2009
%                                                                              08.04.2010
     Kishore Kapoor                                                     ...Petitioner
     Through: Mr. Ravi Chawla, Advocate

         Versus

         Surinder Kamar Bansal                                          ...Respondent
         Through: Ms. Deepti, Advocate


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


         JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 19th May, 2009 passed by learned

ADJ whereby an application of the petitioner for leave to defend was conditionally

allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee of

50% of the amount of cheques.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4, 44,000/- based on

dishonoured cheques issued by the petitioner. In application for leave to defend, the

petitioner took plea that he had settled the matter with the respondent/plaintiff and a

settlement deed was executed. The cheques in question were to be returned by the

respondent but the same were not returned. A copy of settlement deed was annexed

with the leave to defend application. In response to leave to defend application, the

plaintiff /respondent's stand was that the settlement deed was a forged document

and no such settlement was arrived at. Under these circumstances, the trial court

allowed the application for leave to defend conditionally observing that a triable issue

as to whether the settlement deed was forged or not, did arise.

CM(M) 630/2009 Kishore Kapoor v. Surinder Kamar Bansal Page 1 Of 2

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that since it has been held

that a triable issue arises, the trial court should have granted unconditional leave to

defend. I consider that this contention of the petitioner is baseless. The trial court had

considered the nature of defence raised and the reply filed by the respondent. The

conditional leave to defend is granted in those cases where some triable issue is

raised but the credibility of defence is not certain. It is not that conditional leave to

defend is granted when no triable issue is raised. I find no infirmity in the order of the

trial court. The petition is hereby dismissed.

April 08, 2010                                            SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CM(M) 630/2009        Kishore Kapoor v. Surinder Kamar Bansal                    Page 2 Of 2