Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: XXXVII,3

(a)    Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXVII, R.3---Suit for recovery (of Rs. 15,00,00,000/-) on the basis of negotiable instrument /promissory note---Defendant stance (denial of execution of negotiable instrument etc.), considering of---Leave to defend, grant of---Whether conditional or unconditional---Trial Court, powers of---Scope---Perusal of the impugned order showed that on one hand, on the basis of denial of the petitioner to have executed the pronote-in-question, the Court reached the conclusion that the matter in controversy could only be resolved after recording of evidence as valuable rights of the petitioner were involved in the suit and if such permission was not granted to him, he would have to suffer a lot; and on the other hand, the Court while allowing application the leave to defend imposed condition of furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs. 15,00,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court---Said condition apparently appeared to have been imposed on the ground that respondent /plaintiff had appeared in the Court and stated that he had no objection to grant of leave to defend subject to payment of costs---From the tenor of the impugned order, the phrase subject to payment of costs in the statement of the respondent / plaintiff was probably treated by the Court as subject to furnishing of security/surety bond ---While granting leave to defend in a suit under summary jurisdiction, although the concession of the plaintiff can be taken into consideration by the Trial Court, yet while relying upon the same, the Court also has to take into consideration that whether the leave should be granted conditionally or unconditionally and the same is to be done by application of independent judicious mind without being influenced by the concession of the plaintiff requiring the Court to impose a condition of either depositing the amount or furnishing security for the same in any shape such as submitting surety bond, bank guarantee, etc.---Impugned order appeared to have been passed merely on the basis of request of the respondent / plaintiff , hence, did not appear to be passed on the basis of…