JUDGMENT-In this revisional application Mr. Karanee on behalf of the original defendants has contended that the trial Court was wrong in not granting unconditional leave to defend, inasmuch as the trial Court should have accepted the defendants contention that the plaintiffs suit was not on a written contract The writing relied upon by the plaintiffs as constituting the cause of action for the claim in suit did not contain any promise to pay and was merely an entry in the Sahi book for an acknowledgment. The trial Court should have, therefore, held that the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable as a summary suit and should not have directed the defendants to deposit Rs. 7,000 and should have granted unconditional leave to defend.

2. A translation of the writing on which the plaintiffs relied is annexed as Exh. A to the plaint;. A part of the translation is not entirely correct. The writing, when translated, runs as follows:

"Rs. 13,000 Shah Kundanmal and Company. (Sd.I-) Manekchand MohaDlal Poonawala.

Rs. 13,000 Cash full Khata Pete Jama (received on Sarad account and so credited).

Interest 14 annas (fourteen annas). S. Y. 2023 Posh Vad. 12. Monday 6.2.1967. (Sd/-) Mota V

Click Here to Read the rest of this document