( 1 ) ). The petitioner in all these Civil Revision Applications who is either original defendants Nos. 1, 2 or 3 in the five suits being Summary suits Nos. 5349 of 1990, 4664 of 1990, 4766 of 1990, 4765 of 1990 and 5166 of 1990 have challenged the orders dated 4-3-1993 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad granting conditional leave to defend the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 in all these Civil revision Applications.

( 2 ) ). The respondent No. 1 who is the common plaintiff in all the suits has filed the aforesaid suits against the Company or the partnership firm or the sole proprietor concerned and the same has been shown as defendant No. 1 while the defendant No. 2 Dilip Patel and defendant no. 3 Nitin Patel has been shown in each of the suits as Director or a partner or a sole Proprietor of the concerned defendant No. 1 In substance, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are common in all the suits.

( 3 ) ). Summary Suit No. 5349 of 1990 has been filed by the respondent no. 1 against Nubid Agency Ltd. as well as the said two Directors to recover Rs. 58,86,318. 42 ps. wherein the learned Chamber Judge granted conditional leave to defend the suit on each of the defendants depositing a sum of Rs. 25 Lacs. Against the said order, C. R. As. Nos. 1235, 1234 and 1238 of 1993 have been filed by the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Summary Suit No. 4664 of 1990 has been filed by the respondent No. 1 against Deepam Trading Company - a firm by alleging that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners, to recover a sum of rs. 1,09,49,001/- wherein the learned Chamber Judge granted conditional leave to defend the suit upon each of the defendants depositing a sum of Rs. 40 Lacs. Against the said order C. R. As. Nos. 1229, 1228 and 1230 of 1993 have been filed by the firm as well as defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Summary Suit No. 4766 of 1990 has been filed by the respondent No. 1 against the firm M. Dimple and Co. by alleging that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are its partners to recover a sum of rs. 12,80,864. 41 ps. wherein the learned Chamber Judge granted conditional leave to defend the suit upon each of the defendants depositing a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs. Against the said order, again three C. R. As. Nos. 1231, 1232 and 1233 of 1993 have been filed by the said defendants. Summary suit No. 4765 of 1990 has been filed by the respondent No. 1 against the three defendants - the defendant No. 1 being a partnership firm, namely, G. D. Traders and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 being their partners to recover a sum of Rs. 25,66,800. 67 ps. wherein the learned chamber Judge granted conditional leave to defend the suit upon each of the defendants depositing a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs. Against the said order, the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed C. R. As. Nos. 1226, 1225 and 1227 of 1993. Lastly, Summary Suit No. 5166 of 1990 has been filed by the respondent No. 1 against the defendant No. 1 a sole Proprietor and two others to recover a sum of Rs. 79,54,469. 10 ps. wherein the learned Chamber Judge granted conditional leave to defend the suit upon each of the defendants depositing a sum of Rs. 25 Lacs. Against the said order, C. R. As. Nos. 1236 and 1239 of 1993 have been filed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 respectively.

( 4 ) ). Mr. A. L. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner in all these C. R. As. has made a grievance that inspite of the fact that in the leave to defend applications as well as in the subsequent affidavits filed by the petitioners which are on the record of the case, the petitioners have pointed out number of triable issues, they have not at all been considered by the learned Chamber Judge and stereo-type orders have been passed in all the suits imposing condition to deposit huge amounts for granting leave to defend. In some cases, the order to deposit exceeds the claim amounts for granting leave to defend. Mr. Shah, therefore, challenged the impugned order on the ground that it doe