ORDER :

Rashid Ali Dar, J.

1. Learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag has granted conditional leave in favour of the petitioner herein on his appearance before the learned trial court after the institution of the suit in terms of Order 37 of CPC, whereby recovery of Rs. 30,20,000/- was sought from the defendant (petitioner herein), while it is being pleaded that the defendant-petitioner herein had issued three cheques in favour of the respondent. Learned District Judge has taken note of the pleadings of the parties and referred certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts in his order, impugned herein.

2. The petitioner herein had submitted the application for grant of leave on his appearance before the learned trial court while pleading that;

The said court, where the suit has been filed, is lacking the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and on such count alone the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed;

The petitioner and the respondent herein have some sort of business relations between them and one deal was discussed, for that some amount was to be invested by them to get the deal matured. That the plaintiff (respondent herein) was reluctant to invest the money and asked for some kind of security; it is in that regard that the cheques were handed over to him, which were blank cheques with no names or dates mentioned on them. However, the deal got cancelled and the plaintiff was asked to return the cheques but on one pretext or the other he dodged the petitioner herein and surprisingly has misused the cheques by filling the same of his own with exaggerated amounts and filed the suit based on false, frivolous and fabricated grounds.

That the defendant (petitioner herein) is not a land broker, as such, there is no question of receiving any amount from the plaintiff (respondent herein) for providing land to him. Therefore, the defendant (petitioner herein) was having a valid, good and substantial defence to the suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein).'

3. Objections to this application were filed by the other side, refuting all the grounds taken in the said application.

4. It would be proper herein for appreciating the matter in proper perspective to have a glance of the plaint/suit wherein respondent herein had taken the following grounds for grant of decree for realisation of the amount of Rs. 30,20,000/-:-

"...That the defendant has agreed to sold the land to the plaintiff and has received an amount of Rs. 30,20,000/- for the plaintiff, thereafter he failed to deliver the land to the plaintiff, the plaintiff demanded the money from the defendant. The defendant and others have executed the Hundi in favour of the plaintiff wherein the liability of the plaintiff has been admitted by the defendant.

That the defendant in turn issued three cheques to the plaintiff amounting to total Rupees Thirty lacs Twenty Thousand and the said cheques bears Nos. 152971, 152972 and 152973, which were payable at State Bank of India, Anantnag. But on presenting the said cheques before the concerned Bank for encashment all the three cheques were bounced and dishonoured by the concerned Bank. That the defendant had issued the cheques for the discharge of the liability and the cheques so issued were dishonoured within the territorial limits of this court, the cause of action as such has accrued to the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of this court and the court is competent to hear, try and decide the matter..."

5. The course adopted by the learned trial court, according to the petitioner herein, is bad in law while having a view of the contentions raised in the petition:-

The conditional order impugned is bad in law because it amounts to granting of the suit to the extent of 30%, as such the impugned order is liable to set aside so far as the impugned condition is concerned. Further it is pleaded in the petition that though the leave has been granted to the petitioner herein to defend the suit but condition imposed