( 1 ) ALL these revision applications arise out of the orders granting the petitioner conditional leave to defend in different suits filed against him by the different opponents of these revision applications in the court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad. The claim made by each of the opponents in all these suits is for the amount of Rs. 2 0 The contention of every opponent is that he has paid Rs. 2 0 to the petitioner as deposit for becoming a member of the proposed Sudhanshu Co-operative Housing Society. According to the opponents after the receipt of these amounts the petitioner failed in forming the Society and also failed in purchasing any land for the proposed Society. The opponents therefore claim that the petitioner should refund the amount of deposit given by each of them. As against this the main contention which is raised by the petitioner in all these suits is that each of the opponents had paid the amount of Rs. 2 0 not as deposit but as contribution towards the purchase of land for the Society. The facts of the case reveal that at an earlier stage the petitioner had entered into a Banakhat under which he had paid an earnest amount of Rs. 15 0 The petitioner has therefore raised a contention that the payment of Rs. 2 0 made by each of the respondents was a contribution towards the amount of Rs. 15 0 which he has paid towards the Banakhat ands therefore the amount was not liable to be returned.

( 2 ) IN their rejoinder-affidavits the opponents have reiterated their contention that amount of Rs2 0 paid by each of them represented a deposit which was liable to be returned.

( 3 ) ON these contentions the learned trial Judge gave the petitioner a conditional leave to defend. The condition imposed by him in each case was that the petitioner should deposit the amount of Rs. 1 0 within two weeks. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred these revision applications.

( 4 ) THE question which arises to be determined in these applications is whether looking to the facts of the case the learned Judge of the trial Court was justified in imposing any condition at the time of granting the leave to defend. The principles of law which should guide the court while granting leave to defend in the cases governed by the provisions of Order 37 C. P. C. are by now well-settled. If in such cases the defendant raises a triable issue which is also bona fide then the court is legally bound to grant to him an unconditional leave to defend. Imposition of a condition in cases where a bona fide triable issue is raised would obviously render the leave quite illusory and would virtually amount to pure refusal of leave to defend. The position is however different where the court finds that though a particular plea raised by the defendant prima facie involves a triable issue the same is raised purely for the purpose of delaying the proceedings of the suit or where the circumstances of the case as revealed from pleadings and other documents produced in the record point to the want of bona fides of the defendant. In such cases though the court may not withhold leave to defend it may grant the said leave by making it conditional on depositing a particular amount.

( 5 ) IT is thus evident that the special jurisdiction of granting or refusing to grant an unconditional leave to defend which a court enjoys under Order 37 C. P. C. is dependent upon the finding on the question whether the defendant raises a bona fide triable issue. It need not be emphasised that the procedure contemplated by Order 37 C. P. C. is a special departure from usual procedure under the Code according to which every defendant has got a right to defend his case in the manner best suited to him without being fettered by any condition. This procedure is therefore a very potent weapon in the hands of a court to shut out frivolous defences which are raised in some commercial causes mainly with a view to protract the proceedings of a suit. But greater the pote