( 1 ) THE petitioner is defendant in a suit brought against him by the respondent under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of Rs. 13,600 on account of principal and interest on the basis of a pronote executed by him in favour of the respondent for Rs. 10. 000. By his order dated the 6th February 1967. the learned Subordinate Judge granted leave to the petitioner to appear and defend the Nsuit on the condition that the petitioner deposited in cash by y of security the suit amount of Rs. 13,600 together with estimated costs of Rs. 1600 on or before 20th February 1967

( 2 ) THE petitioner has come up in revision against the aforesaid order of the learned Subordinate Judge. His grievance is that the learned Subordinate Judge having held that the petitioner's defence raised triable issues had no jurisdiction to require him to deposit the entire amount in suit with costs as a condition for permission to defend the suit.

( 3 ) PERUSAL of the order of the learned Subordinate Judge shows that he was greatly impressed by the fact that on 7-12-1966 the petitioner had stated before him that if the plaintiff made a statement on oath with the sacred Gits in his hand that he had actually advanced a loan of Rs 10,000 to him. as against Rs 6000 alleged by the petitioner, fee plaintiff's claim against him be decreed and that the petitioner later on resiled from his undertaking The order also refers to certain telegrams sent by the petitioner to the plaintiff-respondent promising to pay the amount due to him from time to time. The learned Subordinate Judge was also greatly impressed by the fact that the petitioner had not produced any receipt evidencing repayment of Rs 3000 to the plaintiff. On the basis of these facts the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that although triable issues had been raised yet the defence disclosed was "highly unimpressive and seemed to have been put forth only to delay the expeditious disposal of the suit. "

( 4 ) IT is possible that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in forming the impression which is reflected in his order. It is also true, as has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Milkhiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Chaman Lal Bros. , AIR 1965 SC 1698 and Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh. (1958) 1 SCR 1211= (AIR 1958 SC 321) that if on consideration of the material placed before the Court it comes to the conclusion that the defence is a sham one and is fantastic or highly improbable an order putting the defendant on term before granting leave to defend would be iustified. But even if the finding recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge about the petitioner's defence being highly unimpressive and having been put forth only with a view to delay the expeditious disposal of the suit, is held to be correct, there is hardly any justification for imposing the condition which the learned Subordinate Judge has imposed in this case.

( 5 ) THE principles that should guide the trial Courts while granting permission to defend the suit have been set out with utmost clarity in a recent judgment of the Punjab High Court in Naresh Chandra Mital v. Bishamber Nath, 1966 Delhi LT 352 (Punj- D) where my Lord the Chief Justice, then a Judge of that Court, observed:

''the Court has in exercising its discretion to keep in view the desirability of facilitating speedy decisions of suits upon bills of exchange, promissory notes and hundis and also to keel in view the drastic nature of the provisions contained in Rules 2 and 3 of Order 37 The presumption of consideration in the case of negotiable instruments on the one hand and the plea of the defendant and the attending circumstances tending to discount such presumption have to be considered and weighed iudiciously by the Court. In other words, the Court has to exercise judicial discretion, keeping in view the basic dictate of justice when determining the question whether or not to permit the defendant to contest the suit and if so wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document