( 1 ) IN a case under this Revision Application the learned Judge trying a Summary suit surprisingly has undertaken an exercise of comparing the alleged signature of the defendant on the suit promissory note (which itself has been counter-challenged by the defendant to he false forged and fabricated) alongwith that of yet another signature of the defendant made on the Vakalatpatra filed by him in order to decide as to whether both these signatures were identical and made by the same and very author viz. the defendant without raising any triable issue thereupon and permitting the defendant to lead any evidence to prove his defence. Can this ever be done is a short question which is being dealt with and answered in this judgment.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are respondent-plaintiff filed a money suit the same being Summary Suit No. 17 of 1982 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) Anand (for short-trial Court) against the plaintiff-defendant praying for the recovery of Rs. 7080. 00 It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant had executed a promissory note to the tune of Rs. 6000/ in his favour in the gear 1979 and despite repeated demands to return the same since the defendant refused to oblige he was constrained to file the present suit. According to the plaintiff though the suit was primarily based on Its. 6000/- he has claimed an additional amount of Rs. 1080. 00 by way of interest and thereby praying for a total money decree to the tune of Rs. 7080. 00. 2. 1 The defendant on being served with summons for the judgment submitted an application Ex. 9 praying for unconditional leave to defend the suit duly supported by an affidavit; precisely on the grounds that (i) he was an agriculturist; (ii) a false suit was filed against him and (iii) in fact he has not taken any amount from the plaintiff and accordingly therefore there was no occasion for him to execute any promissory note (in printed form) in favour of the Plaintiff as alleged by him (iv) the alleged writing on Pro-Note was a forgery. 2. 2 The trial Court by an order dated 25/06/1984 dismissed the said application Ex. 9 and hence feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same the petitioner-defendant herein has moved this Court by way of a Revision Application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1976

( 3 ) MR. S. R. Shah the learned Advocate appears for the petitioner- defendant as against him though the respondent-plaintiff is duly served is surprisingly absent.

( 4 ) IT was submitted by Mr. Shah the learned Advocate for the petitioner-defendant that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting application for unconditional leave to defend was on the face of it illegal arbitrary and unjust and hence the same deserved to be quashed and set aside. He contended that the defendant has prima facie raised a triable-issue of forgery According to Mr. Shah the promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant and which was the very basis on which the suit amount was claimed was itself counter-alleged by the defendant to have been argued and fabricated document He submitted that since the defendant has raised serious disputed question of fact and thereby a `triable issue the trial Court ought to have granted an unconditional leave to defend the case. In support of his submissions Mr. Shah has invited my attention to a leading decision on the point reported in AIR 1977 SC 577 in the case of M/s Mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation wherein it has been observed that the following principles are to be followed while considering the question of granting leave to defend (A) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. (B) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona-fide or reas