S.L. Bhayana, J. 1. This is an appeal arising out of the order dated 27-06-2002 of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge whereby the learned ADJ has dismissed the application of the appellant seeking leave to defend the suit and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4,65,925.95 along with cost, pendente lite and future interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realisation. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- as an advance to the defendant/appellant on various dates between 08-05-86 to 26-07-90 and the defendant was to pay interest @ 15% on the said amount. The defendant/appellant had been paying interest to the plaintiff regularly and he paid interest for the period from 08-05-86 to 20-07-91 amounting to Rs. 14,838.70. He again paid Rs. 20,250/towards interest for the period from 01-04-91 to 31-03-92 and again made payment towards interest in the sum of Rs. 16,219/- in cash on 20-09-99 leaving a balance of Rs. 3,62,382.85 to be paid to the plaintiff. The defendant/appellant also issued a cheque to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- dated 29-03-2000 which was dishonoured when presented by the plaintiff 'with the remarks "payment stopped". The plaintiff also served a legal notice on the defendants asking them to pay the entire amount ofRs.4,18,809.85 but the defendants had failed to pay the same. 3. The plaintiff filed the present suit u/o 37 CPC. The summons were served on the defendants for appearance and thereafter summons for judgment were 'also served upon the defendants upon which the defendants/appellants moved an application seeking leave to defend the suit supported by an affidavit. The appellants 'made averments in the said application that the interest was payable @ 10% per annum and not 15% per annum. They further submitted that in August 1999 a settlement was arrived at between the parties and the plaintiff had agreed to accept the sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- in full and final settlement of the entire claim. The defendants/appellants paid a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- in cash and issued two cheques for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each. This amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- was paid to S.K. Aggarwal, husband of the plaintiff besides the above said two cheques of Rs. 3,60,000/- in full and final settlement of the entire claim. The defendants/appellants paid a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- in cash and issued two cheques for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each. This amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- was paid to S.K. Aggarwal, husband of the plaintiff besides the above said two cheques of Rs. 20,000/- each but the plaintiff later on started saying that her husband has not received a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- in cash as alleged by the defendants/appellants. It is submitted that the defendants/appellants are not liable to pay the suit amount as claimed as they have already made payment in cash to the husband of the plaintiff. It is also alleged by the defendants/appellants that the husband of the plaintiff had also issued a. receipt to the Accountant of the defendants for the payment made by them to the plaintiffs. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed counter-affidavit stating therein that there was no full and final settlement arrived at between the parties in the year 1990 for a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/-. The plaintiff also denied that the defendants/appellants paid a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- in cash to the plaintiff against any receipt. Defendants/appellants issued cheque of Rs. 20,000/- towards part payment of the dues but the same was dishonoured by the bank when presented. It is further stated by' the plaintiff that Annexure-A receipt is altered, forged, manipulated, distorted and fabricated one. However, the plaintiff has stated that on 28-12-97 the husband of the plaintiff had issued a receipt to the Accountant of the defendants towards part payment of the due interest for the previous years. The said receipt has been distorted, manipulated. and fabricated by the defendants. The said receipt was actually dated 28-12-97 and not 28-12-99 as the same has been fabricated by the defendants. 5. After hearing arguments of both the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the said application of the defendants/appellants for leave to defend the suit and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as above said. 6. Arguments heard. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although a ,sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants but this was given on the interest payable by the defendants @ 10% per annum and not 15% per annum as alleged. It is further submitted that a sum of Rs. 6. Arguments heard. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although a ,sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants but this was given on the interest payable by the defendants @ 10% per annum and not 15% per annum as alleged. It is further submitted that a sum of Rs. 3,60,900/- had become due and payable to the plaintiff and against the defendants and the defendants/appellants had paid a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- in cash to the husband of the plaintiff and also issued two cheques of Rs. 20,000/- each. Husband of the plaintiff had issued a receipt Annexure-A towards receipt of Rs. 3,20,000/- in cash from the defendants which is dated 28-12-99. It is further submitted that now the plaintiffs have turned dishonest saying that they have not received Rs. 3,20,000/- from the defendants. It is further submitted that the defendants have paid a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- in full and final settlement of the entire claim of the plaintiff and the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/appellants submitted that no payment has been received either by the plaintiff or her husband. They have denied having received payment of Rs. 3,20,000/- in cash. They have also denied any settlement having been arrived at" between the parties and that Rs. 3,20,000/- had been paid as full and final settlement of the entire claim of the plaintiff by the defendants/appellants. They have submitted that the receipt produced by the defendant is false and fabricated. The plaintiff has issued a receipt towards payment of interest in the year 1997 but the defendants have changed the date on the receipt from 1997 to•1999 and had also added figure Rs. 3,20,000/- in cash. Plaintiff has placed on record carbon copy of the said receipt in which it is mentioned that they have received interest in cash against interest A/c and there is no mention of the amount of Rs. 3,20,000/-. The following are the words of the receipt filed by the appellants:- "Received from Reliance Engg. & Elect. Corp. By cash against Intt. A/c Veena Aggarwal on A/c Rs. 3,20,000/- - For Veena Aggarwal Sid S.K. Aggarwal 28.12.97" 7 . We have gone through the receipt filed by the defendant in which it is mentioned that husband of Veena Aggarwal has received a sum of Rs. & Elect. Corp. By cash against Intt. A/c Veena Aggarwal on A/c Rs. 3,20,000/- - For Veena Aggarwal Sid S.K. Aggarwal 28.12.97" 7 . We have gone through the receipt filed by the defendant in which it is mentioned that husband of Veena Aggarwal has received a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- whereas in the carbon copy of receipt filed by the plaintiff it is mentioned 'that her husband received some cash against interest. The receipt filed' by the defendant has been disputed by the plaintiff on the ground that it is fabricated and they have only charged interest in cash for a particular period from the defendants and they have never received Rs. 3,20,000/- from the defendants as alleged by them and the receipt filed by the defendant is forged and fabricated. All these issues raised by the defendant can only be decided by producing evidence in this regard. In our opinion, the defendants have raised triable issues which can be decided only by adducing evidence by the appellants. 8. We, therefore, hold that defendants are entitled to conditional leave to defend the suit. It is, therefor, ordered that defendants/appellants are granted leave to defend the suit subject to the condition that the appellants shall deposit the entire decretal amount before the trial court within four weeks from today. With these observations, the appeal of the appellants is partly allowed. Impugned order dated. 27-06-2002 is ordered to be set aside. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 27-11-2006.