Dua ( 1 ) THIS is a defendant s revision directed against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 7th November, 1966 granting him relief to appear and defend the suit in question subject to the condition that he deposits in cash by way of security the suit am aunt of Rs. 21. 800. 00 together with the sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 on account of estimated costs on or before 24th September. 1966. It may be stated that the suit ha3 been instituted under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 2 ) ON revision, the learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that the conidtion imposed by the Court below is very onerous because the entire amount along with the estimated costs have been directed to be deposited in cash. This, according to him, is arbitrary and unjust. ( 3 ) THE Court below has dealt with the defence and holding it to raise a triable issue granted leave, but not being impressed by the defence, it ordered the amount to be, deposited in cash. This order is obviously passed in the exercise of the discretion of the Court below and this Court on revision normally does not interfere with such discretion. It is quite correct that ordinarily the defendent is not entitled to appear and defend a suit instituted under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure without obtaining leave of the Court which may be granted up- on-an application by the defendant disclosing facts making it incumbent on the holder r. f the negotiable instrument in question to prove consideration or such other facts which the Court considers sufficient to support the defendant s claim. Leave may be granted unconditionally or on terms as illustrated in Order 37, Rule 3 (2) of the Code. The policy of the law, however, is not to unduly obstruct the defendant in his defence by imposing too harsh conditions. The basic object of enacting Order 37 in the Code is to see that suits on negotiable instruments instituted within the shorter period of limitation prescribed for the purpose are not unduly delaved by untenable please in defene because of the obvious legal presumption arising from such documents. The basic object of enacting Order 37 in the Code is to see that suits on negotiable instruments instituted within the shorter period of limitation prescribed for the purpose are not unduly delaved by untenable please in defene because of the obvious legal presumption arising from such documents. But at the same time when the defence does raise a triable issue, the trial must not be rendered prejudicial to the defendant by imposing unduly harsh conditions. A triable issue being raised, the Court must lean in favour of a proper trial without placing unreasonable hurdles in the defendant s way, but of course duly. safeguarding the plaintiff s right to succesfully execute the decree he may obtain and reap its fruit without much delay difficulty or observation. Beyond this, it wouh appear to be unfair and unjust to the defendant if more onerous terms are imposed as a condition precedent to his appearance in Court for defending the suit. ( 4 ) IN the present case, in my opinion, the interests of the justice would be best served if the defendant is required to furnish bank guarantee for the amount of the suit along with the estimated costs The Court below was, in my opinion not quite fair and judicious in insisting on cash deposits in Court. The learned counsel for the defendant initially agreed to this condition but later reconsidering his position submitted that the securiety already furnished by him in pursuance of the order of the admitting Judge in this Court should be held sufficient. I do not agree that the security furnished in the present proceedings can justifiably be considered sufficient. Bank guarantee would seem to me to be the only adequate security which, on the facts of this case, would satisfy the ends of justice and I order accordingly in modification of the order of the Court below. The security would, of course, be of a schedule bank. The petitioner s learned counsel wants time to make arranegements for the security. I grant him one month from today for furnishing the requisite security. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. ( 5 ) BEFORE concluding, I must advert to one other aspect. The petitioner s learned counsel wants time to make arranegements for the security. I grant him one month from today for furnishing the requisite security. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. ( 5 ) BEFORE concluding, I must advert to one other aspect. In this case the revision was presented in this Court on 20th September, 1966 and it was represented that the certified copy of the impunged order was not available and that the same would be filed as soon as it is obtained. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before me the certificate copy of the impunged order which was ready on 22nd September, 1966. It is not understood why the learned counsel did not produce this copy in this Court immediately after its receipt as was raprefented by him in his application (C. M. 3453-D of 1966 ). In future. in all cases where an order is obtained from this Court exempting production of the certified copy on the ground that the same has not been made available to the applicant, the said copy should be produced within a reasonable time after it is received from the copying agency.