S.Raju vs C.Sathammai

The Supreme Court held that the appellant should be granted leave to defend the suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, despite the trial court and High Court's rejection based on perceived inconsistencies in the appellant's claims regarding a promissory note. The Court found that the appellant, an uneducated contractor, had valid grounds to contest the authenticity of the signatures on the note, which were allegedly obtained under false pretenses. The Court set aside the lower courts' orders and allowed the appellant to defend the suit, contingent upon a deposit of Rs.50,000 in the trial court within two months.