SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.:- Perplexed due to alleged divergent views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court viz. Bombay Enamel Works Vs. Purshottam, AIR 1975 Bombay 128 and M/s. D. Shanalal Vs. Bank of Maharashtra, AIR 1989 Bombay 150, on the question whether appellants are entitled to challenge the order passed by Court granting conditional leave to defend under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code while assailing the final decree passed in summary suit on the ground of non-compliance of conditional order, another Division Bench referred the question to larger Bench. While answering the reference, we do not find any conflict of views in the two Division Bench judgments and find that propriety, legality or correctness of an interlocutory order granting conditional leave or refusing leave to defend the Suit could be challenged by the aggrieved party in an appeal preferred against the final decree provided that the party had not unsuccessfully challenged that order during the pendency of proceedings, prior to passing of the decree or otherwise.

Facts :-

2. The plaintiff who has been carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Sagar Synthetics, brought a S