( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Orders of the learned Principal junior Civil Judge in I. A. No. 145 of 2000 in o. S. No. 323 of 1999, dated: 30-4-2001.

( 2 ) PETITIONER is the Defendant. Respondent filed a suit for recovery of certain sums and the suit was filed under summary Trial procedure under Order 37 of code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner filed an application in I. A. No. 145 of 2000 seeking leave of the Court to defend the case. The said application was dismissed by an Order dated 30- 4- 2001, against which the present civil Revision Petition has been filed.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has not properly appreciated the purport of order 37 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure and mechanically rejected the application of leave to defend the case.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner- Defendant that he never executed any pronote and that he did not know the name in whose favour and the persons, who attested (the pronote was executed,) the scribe on pronote. Therefore, in such circumstances, it becomes a triable issue. Therefore, the lower Court ought to have granted leave. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Santosh kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh and also the judgment of the learned Single Judge reported in Kantiudi Lalitha Lakshmi Manohar samswathi v. Kantipudi Ramakrishna and also the Judgment of the Madras High Court reported in K. S. Meenakshi Ammal v. M. Subbalakshmi Ammal.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the lower Court on an application filed by the petitioner found that there was no substantial defence and therefore, the application was rightly rejected. It is also stated that when a notice was issued, having received the same, the petitioner failed to reply the same. Therefore, the conclusion arrived by the lower Court that it amounts to admission on the part of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal and contrary to law. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court (sic. Calcutta high Court) reported in Kiranmoyee Darsi v. Dr. J. Chatterjee.

( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that when a substantial defence leading to the triable issues arises, the Court cannot refuse leave to the defence. This was succinctly laid down by the Calcutta High Court as (A) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend, (B) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence although not a positively good defence the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign Judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. (C) If the defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, that is to say, although the affidavit does not positively and immediately make it clear that he has a defence, yet, shows such a state of facts as leads to the inference that at the trial of the action he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff s claim the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment and the defendant is entitled to leave to defend but in such a case the Court may in its discretion impose conditions as to the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security. (D) If the defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign Judgment and the defendant is not entitled to leave to defend. (E) If the defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then although ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign Judgment, the Court may protect the plaintiff by only allowing the defence to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into Court or otherwise secured and give leave to the defendant on such co