Tendolkar,J.

1. This is an appeal from an order as well as an ex partc decree of the City Civil Court. The suit was filed as a summary suit on a Promissory note for Rs. 3000/- ; and in this suit the defendant made an application under Section 30 of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946. This application was dismissed by Judge K. M. Vakil on the 18th of February, 1955, as he held that the defendant was not entitled to take out a notice under Section 30 of the Act in a summary suit without obtaiuing leave to defend the suit. Against this order an appeal was admitted to this Court. In the meantime a summons for judgment was taken out and conditional leave to defend was granted; but as the defendant was unable to comply with the condition for deposit of money an ex parte decree has been passed against him. An appeal has now been filed against this ex parte decree as well. Both the appeals are before us for hearing and final disposal.

2. The only point, which is a neat question of law, that really arises for determination is whether the defendant is entitled to present an application under Section 30 of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, notwithstanding the fact that ho has failed to obta