JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Tarak Damani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.

2. By preferring present petition, the petitioner has challenged the common order dated 31st March 2017 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad No. 26 below applications Exh. 21 and 27 in Summary Suit No. 1916 of 2014 granting conditional leave to defend to the petitioner/original defendant on condition that petitioner shall deposit Rs. 36,23,853/- within six months before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the present case may be summarized as under:

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit on 12th August 2014 to recover an amount of Rs. 38,23,853/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the defendant/petitioner before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. After filing of the suit on 12th August 2014 and before the service of the summons on the defendant on or about 25.02.20215, as per the averments made by the petitioner/defendant, petitioner made payment of Rs. 2 lakhs on 02.09.2014 through RTGS from Silvasa which according to the petitioner was full and final settlement. The petitioner raised several triable issues including issues of territorial jurisdiction, issue of interest which was claimed without any agreement and discharged by full and final settlement. However, the trial court passed the impugned order of granting conditional leave to defend the suit to the petitioner on a condition to deposit Rs. 36,23,853/- within six months before the Trial Court.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

5. It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that however trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, as no registered office or business within the local jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court was there, the trial court has committed grave error in granting conditional permission to leave to defend the suit. It was further submitted that the payment of Rs. 2 lacs was also made by the petitioner, and thereafter Rs. 2 lakhs through RTGS from Silvasa towards the full and final settlement. That, the impugned order passed by the trial court is contrary to the law and evidence on record, however, trial court has concluded that there are triable issues of territorial jurisdiction. That, the trial court has imposed such condition with regard to the payment of decree amount which is not permissible. While referring the invoices especially condition No. 3 produced at page no.31 of this petition, it was argued that interest @ 15% p.a. will be charged on all accounts unpaid after (NIL)days. That, there was no condition to charge the interest as observed by the learned trial court. That, in the affidavit in reply of the respondent in para 4.6 , it is stated that as per the agreed terms between the parties herein, the petitioner company was to make payment for the material within 30 days of the receipt of the material. That, in invoice there was no date fixed for making payment of the material by the petitioner. That, unconditional leave to defend was required to be granted by the trial court. That, once the trial court has concluded that there are triable issues, the court cannot impose such condition with regard to payment into court or furnishing of the security. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in (2006) 8 SCC 25; (2017) 1 SCC 568 and judgment passed by learned division bench of this court in Special Civil Application No. 6350 of 2017. It is further argued that issue of interest is also triable issue and learned Judge has materially erred in granting conditional leave to defend the suit to the present petitioner. Hence, it was requested to allow this petitioner by quashing the impugned orders.

6. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent has supported the impugned orders passed by the trial court. Referring the copy of the plaint, it is submitted that as per the three invoices as shown i