Conditional leave to defend in a summary suit upheld, with time-bound filing and procedural directions instead of a deposit condition.

Leave to defend in a summary suit under Order 37 Rule 3(3) CPC may be granted either unconditionally or on just terms. The defence was not found to be very strong, but it was sufficient to justify conditional leave rather than refusal. Because the debt was treated as fully secured, a deposit condition was considered unnecessary. The Court instead directed a time-bound schedule for filing the written statement and then regulated discovery, inspection, and hearing of the suit. Conditional leave to defend was therefore granted on the terms imposed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendants were entitled to leave to defend the summary suit and, if so, whether such leave should be unconditional or subject to terms.

Analysis: Under Order 37, Rule 3(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, leave to defend may be granted either unconditionally or on such terms as appear just. The defence was held not to be a very strong one, but sufficient to justify conditional leave. Since the debt was treated as fully secured, a deposit condition was not considered necessary. The Court held that the proper course was to impose a time-bound schedule for filing the written statement and thereafter to regulate discovery, inspection, and hearing of the suit.

Conclusion: Conditional leave to defend was granted to the defendants on the terms directed by the Court.

---