In an application for leave to defend, the applicant need only establish that they have a real defense to the suit, not that they will succeed in the defense raised.

ORDER :- These are appeals against the order of the Master dismissing the applications taken out by the 1st and 2nd defendants separately, for leave to defend but on practically the same grounds.

2. The plaintiffs belong to New York; the 1st defendant is the Express Newspapers Limited, and the 2nd defendant is the Managing Director of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs were acting as the representatives of the 1st defendant at New York. The defendants entered into a contract with one Ben Shulman of New York for the purchase of a printing press and asked the plaintiffs, their business representatives at New York, to advance a sum of 10,000/- dollars towards the cost of the machinery. Defendants executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiffs for 10,000/- dollars on 9-4-1947. The present suit is on that promissory note.

3. The defence as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the application for leave to defend is that the suit promissory note was not intended to be acted upon, that the defendants placed an order through the plaintiffs with one Ben Shulman of New York for purchase on behalf of the defendants a printing machinery valued at 1,35,000 dollars and that on hearing from the plaintiffs and the seller Ben Shulman, a letter of credit was sent on 20-11-1947 on the understanding that the machinery was ready for shipment. A sum of 10,000/- dollars had to be paid as advance and the plaintiffs were to pay that amount in the first instance and recover the same from the amount of the letter of credit to be opened by the defendants in favour of Ben Shulman. The defendants accordingly provided the funds to open a letter of credit in favour of Ben Shulman in which the amount of advance by the plaintiffs, namely 10,000/- dollars, was also included. In the meanwhile, there were some disputes after the shipment of the machinery as to an alleged breach on the part of the sellers of the contract of sale. The defendants state that under the arrangement between the parties, the plaintiffs have to receive 10,000/- dollars, in respect of which the suit promissory note was executed, from Ben Shulman, more so especially when the amount has been already paid to Ben Shulman and included in the letter of credit. In effect, they plead discharge by the arrangement alleged. The plaintiffs case is that the letters of credit should be opened in their name and that the 2nd defendant agreed that all letters of credit would be opened in the plaintiffs name, but when the time came to open the letters of credit, the 2nd defendant did not do so, but opened them in favour of Ben Shulman. They take up the position that they are not concerned with the arrangement that the defendants may have made with Ben Shulman. They state that they are not parties to any such arrangement. Though it is stated by the defendants in the affidavit that the pronote was not intended to be acted upon, the real defence seems to be, as could be gathered from the allegations in the affidavit, that the pronote was discharged by the opening of the letter of credit in favour of Ben Shulman including the pronote amount. That is in pursuance of an arrangement, which is pleaded by the defendants, to which, it is stated, the plaintiffs were a party, that the plaintiffs would receive this 10,000/- dollars from Ben Shulman, instead of directly from the defendants.

4. Three letters in the correspondence between the parties may be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is a real defence to the suit. On the same date as the pronote, that is on 9-4-1947, the 2nd defendant writes to the plaintiffs requesting them to pay 10,000/- dollars to Mr. Ben Shulman and stating that he will reimburse the amount as soon as he could arrange it. There is also mention in that letter that the 2nd defendant has cabled that day to open another letter of credit for 10,000/- dollars in respect of an item of machinery different from the one in respect of which the amount of 10,00