Satyanarayana Rao, J.-This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of our learned brother, Yahya Ali, J., dismissing the appeal perferred against the order of the Master.

The respondent to this appeal is the South Indian Bank, Ltd., which instituted a suit, C.S. No. 480 of 1947, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,310-10-0 from the defendant. The suit was instituted under summary procedure provided under Order 7, rule 6 of the Original Side Rules and under Order 37, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The claim was based on a cheque for a sum of Rs. 10,000 dated 12th April, 1947, drawn by the appellant on the Indian Bank, Ltd., Thyagarayanagar, in favour of one K.C.M.C. Rathnasabapathi Nadar and Sons. The drawee of the cheque negotiated it to the plaintiff bank and it was alleged in the plaint that it was endorsed to if for valuable consideration and that the plaintiff is a holder in due course. The cheque was presented to the Indian Bank by the plaintiff but it was dishonoured on 16th April, 1947. The plaintiff, therefore, claims that he is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant on the basis of the negotiable instrument.

As the suit was filed under summary procedure the defendant had to obtain leave to defend the suit under Order 7, rule 6, Original Side Rules and for this purpose he made an application to the Master, Application No. 3010 of 1947. The main defences raised by him in that application were that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course as there was no consideration for the endorsement and secondly that the plaintiff had no cause of action to sue for the recovery of the amount as no notice of dishonour was given to the defendant until 26th May, 1947, which according to him was wholly an unreasonable notice as considerable time had elapsed from the date of dishonour.

The Master was of opinion that as the payee endorsed the cheque in reduction of his previous liability and also to provide a margin for future advances the endorsement was supported by consideration and that, the plaintiff was a holder in due course. To get over the plea of unreasonable delay in issuing a notice the plaintiff pleaded that after the cheque was dishonoured by the Indian Bank on 16th April, 1947, the defendant was informed of the same but the defendant requested the plaintiff to present the cheque again. Twice it was presented and twice it was dishonoured and therefore it was alleged that there was oral notice of dishonour immediately after the cheque was dishonoured by the Indian Bank on 16th April, 1947. For these reasons he was of opinion that though there was a triable issue the defence was not bona fide. He, therefore, granted conditional leave to defend the suit the condition being that the defendant should within four weeks from the date of this order deposit into Court a sum of Rs. 10,000 or furnish security for that sum within that period.

Against this order there was an appeal which was disposed by Yahya Ali, J. The learned Judge agreed with the conclusion of the Master and confirmed the order granting conditional leave to defend the suit.

In this appeal against that order the learned advocate for the appellant raised the contention that as it was found by the Master as well as by the learned Judge that there were triable issues arising on the defence unconditional leave should have been granted and that the question of bona fide nature of the defence should not have entered into consideration in view of the finding that triable issues were raised in the defence.

Under Order 7, rule 6, Original Side Rules, an order granting leave to defend may be unconditional or subject to terms. The language of the rule is word for word the same as that of Order 14, rule 6 of the rules of the Supreme Court in England. The rule in England received an authoritative interpretation by the House of Lords in Jacobs v. Booth’s Distillery Co.1 The principles laid down in that decision for the guidance of the Courts in Engl