1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is at the instance of the original defendants and is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th October 2017 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar, in the Regular Civil Appeal No.16 of 2016, by which the the appeal came to be dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 30th October 2015 passed by the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, in the Special Summary Suit No.17 of 2013.

2. The appellants herein are the original defendants. The respondent herein is the original plaintiff. The respondent - plaintiff filed a Special Summary Suit No.17 of 2013 in the court of the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, for recovery of Rs.5,39,500=00 from the appellants herein on the basis of the bills raised towards the purchase of goods by the appellants herein from the plaintiff.

3. It appears from the materials on record that the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement for supply of copper rods. The appellants herein - original defendants purchased copper rods and agreed to make the payment towards such transaction.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants failed to make the payment of Rs.5,39,500=00 due and payable for the purchase of copper rods. The amount was raised by the plaintiff in accordance with Bill No.92.

5. The defendants appeared and filed an application for leave to defend vide Exh.18. The trial Court, by judgment and order dated 30th October 2015 passed below Exh.18 in the Special Summary Suit No.17 of 2013, granted conditional leave to defend on deposit of Rs.5,39,500=00.

6. The appellants herein - original defendants did not comply with the conditional order of leave to defend. In such circumstances, the trial Court proceeded to draw a decree in favour of the respondent herein - original plaintiff.

7. The appellants herein, being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, preferred the Regular Civil Appeal No.16 of 2016 in the court of the Principal District Judge at Gandhinagar.

8. The First Appeal filed by the appellants herein under Section 96 of the CPC came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 6th October 2017.

9. It is pertinent to note that the appeal came to be dismissed by the first appellate court only on the ground that the defendants failed to comply with the conditional order and, therefore, the merits of the case of the defendants cannot be looked into in an appeal from an ex-parte decree. To put it in other words, the first appellate court took the view that an appeal preferred by a defendant from an ex-parte decree passed in a summary suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the defendant could be said to have admitted the claim of the plaintiff.

10. The first appellate court, in taking the aforesaid view while dismissing the appeal, placed strong reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of D.Shanalal v. Bank of Maharashtra, AIR 1989 Bom 150.

11. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the first appellate court, the appellants - original defendants are here before this Court with the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC.

12. The appellants have formulated the following substantial questions of law in the memo of their Second Appeal :

"(i) Whether the suit filed by respondent is falling under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure ?

(ii) Whether both the courts below have failed to consider the defence raised by the appellants that there are triable issues indicating that there is a fair and bonafide or reasonable defence set out by the appellants-defendant and therefore the appellants were entitled to leave to defend.

(iii) Whether both the courts below have failed to consider that as per pleading there are triable issues and there was reasonable defence and therefore defendants are entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

(iv) In the facts and circumstances of the case the judgme