Unconditional leave to defend under Order 37 stands where a bona fide triable issue exists; revision cannot override discretion lightly.

Under Order 37 CPC, unconditional leave to defend is justified where the defendant discloses a triable issue or a fair, bona fide defence; conditions such as a deposit are reserved for defences that are illusory, sham, or practically moonshine. Revisional interference under Section 115 CPC is not warranted merely because a High Court would take a different view on the facts, especially on bona fides, unless the trial court's discretionary order is legally unsustainable. On the stated facts, the defence was not shown to be patently dishonest or incapable of success, so interference with the grant of unconditional leave was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the trial court's grant of unconditional leave to defend under Order 37, and whether the defendant's defence was of such a nature as to justify imposition of conditions.

Analysis: Under Order 37, unconditional leave to defend is warranted where the defendant raises a triable issue or discloses a fair, bona fide, or reasonable defence. Conditions such as deposit in court are justified only where the defence is illusory, sham, or practically moonshine. Revisional interference under Section 115 is not appropriate merely because the High Court may take a different view on facts, especially on the question whether the defence is bona fide, unless the trial court's exercise of discretion is shown to be legally unsustainable. The defence in the case was not shown to be patently dishonest or incapable of success in a manner that would justify interference with the order granting unconditional leave.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the trial court's discretionary order, and the defendant was entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional interference is impermissible against a trial court's grant of unconditional leave to defend unless the defence is patently dishonest, sham, or so unreasonable that no bona fide triable issue arises.

---