1. Revision petition has been filed to set aside order dated 28-03-2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar.

2. It appears that respondents filed suit for recovery of Rs. 35,00,000/- with 18% interest, under Order 37 CPC, in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in which the defendants-present petitioners were permitted to defend the suit with direction to furnish Bank Security in the amount of Rs. 20 lacs and court Security in the amount of Rs. 15 lacs, vide order dated 28-03-2001. The petitioners are aggrieved of the direction of the court below requiring them to furnish the securities.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on AIR 1977 SC 577 and AIR 1985 Karn 83, and submits that once the permission has been granted to defend the suit, the direction to make payment in the Court and furnishing security, as in the impugned order, would not be legally sustainable. To this extent, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that, order may be set aside.

4. Relevant portion of the impugned order, in which the learned trial Court has given his opinion that, there are some triable issues, is reproduced as

That the defendants have established that there are some triable issues in view of the fact that it has been alleged that the cheques had been previously signed and plaintiffs having access to the office of the defendants took disadvantage of that access and filled in the signed blank cheques. In other words, it is the case of defendants that the cheques have been infact stolen from the office of the defendants. In view of this triable issue as to whether the cheques had been previously signed by the defendants and whether the same were stolen and filled in by the plaintiffs is a matter of fact which needs to be proved or disproved by way of evidence.

5. The trial Court seems to have committed error of jurisdiction by not properly understanding and appreciating the scheme of Order 37 CPC, which clearly lays that in case the defendant satisfies the Court, that he has a good defence to resist the claim of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff would not succeed in the suit, in that eventuality the defendant is entitled to un-conditional leave to defend the suit. The right of the defendant to put up his defence would also be available, if the defendant succeeds to show to the trial Court, that there are triable issues and on proof of such issues, he has a fair chance of success, in that eventuality also the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit. It is only in such eventualities, where the defendant discloses facts which may be deemed sufficient to draw inference that at the trial, the defendant may show sufficient cause to resist the claim of the plaintiff, in that eventuality the Court may impose conditions only to the extent of mode of trial, but not by directing the defendant to make payment, in the Court or by furnishing security. In case the defendant has no defence and his plea seems to be sham, imaginary and in that eventuality, the Court may permit the defendant to defend, out of mercy on the conditions of depositing the amount, in the Court or to submit the security.

This view has been taken by the Apex Court in AIR 1977 SC 577.

6. Applying the above test, it is manifestly clear that the trial Court has given a finding that there are triable issues, and on this specific finding,the trial Court is not justified to impose any condition, but is, under law, obliged to grant leave to defend unconditionally. The impugned order, on these grounds, seems to have been passed on improper exercise of jurisdiction, as such, same is set aside to the extent of furnishing security and making payment. However, in order to ensure that no delay is caused in the proceedings, and as accepted by learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court is directed to conduct the trial of the case on weekly basis. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assured of his co-oper

Click Here to Read the rest of this document