IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the respective rights and contentions in granting leave to defend a summary suit, ensuring expeditious disposal of commercial disputes, and exercising discretion judiciously to avoid impeding the speedy resolution of the dispute.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri B. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Poornima Singh Kambli, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Respondent Bank filed summary suit i.e., O.S.No.34 of 2020 under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the Court of the Hon'ble Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad praying to grant judgment and decree against defendant for a sum of USD 1, 206, 174.46 (US Dollars One Million Two Hundred and Six Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Four Dollars Forty Six Cents Only). After service of summons, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.363 of 2022 in COS.No.34 of 2020 under Order XXXVII Rule 5 R/w. Sec. 151 of CPC, praying to grant unconditional leave to defend the suit. The trial Court elaborately considered respective submissions and by order dtd. 20/3/2023 granted leave to the petitioner to defend the suit subject to furnishing the security equivalent to the suit amount i.e., Rs.8, 56, 50, 448.60 paise within 60 days from the date of the order. Aggrieved thereby, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court having observed that the petitioner has made out triable issues, ought to have granted unconditional leave to defend and grossly erred in imposing condition of furnishing security equivalent to the suit amount to defend as a condition precedent admission to defend the summary suit. In support of his contention that the trial Court grossly erred in directing the petitioner to furnish the security equivalent to the suit amount, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudin Dilip Talaulikar Vs. Polycap wires Pvt. Ltd, (2019) 7 SCC 577. and IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Hubtown Ltd, (2017) 1 SCC 568.

4. Per contra, according to learned counsel for the respondent, the trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion in insisting the petitioner to furnish security for the entire amount admitted by the petitioner and since petitioner has already admitted liability, he is bound to furnish the security. Learned counsel submits that having regard to the facts of the case, the trial Court has rightly directed the petitioner to furnish the security for the full amount claimed by the plaintiff. This Court cannot interfere with the said discretion exercised by the trial Court.

5. Having regard to the controversy involved, we are not recording in detail the facts in issue. As the revision petition before us is against the interlocutory order and the main suit is pending consideration of the Commercial Court, the only issue for consideration is whether the trial Court erred in directing the petitioner to furnish security for the entire suit amount claimed by the plaintiff.

6. To grant leave to defend, the Court has to satisfy that there are triable issues. Having regard to this requirement, the Commercial Court noticed the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner to grant leave. The Commercial Court noted that petitioner was seeking liquidity damages, raised plea of jurisdiction, raised objection regarding verification of the plaintiff and also raised objection regarding various amendment orders. The trial Court noted that these are all triable issues and therefore leave can be accorded to the defendant to defend the suit. The trial Court further noticed that defendant has raised several issues which require roving inquiry which is not possible without trial of the suit. Therefore, the trial Court granted leave to the defendant, to defend the suit on the condition of furnishing security equivalent to the suit amount.

7. The issue of granting leave to defend in a summary suit and whether leave can be granted unconditionally or conditions should be imposed was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately in IDBI case. In paragraph No.15 of the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down principles that should be observed while granting unconditional