Short Note : 1. The non-applicant had filed summary suit under Order 37, Rule 3 CPC upon a promissory note. The applicant appeared before the Court and prayed for leave to defend the case. The trial Court gave the permission on the condition that the applicant shall furnish security for the amount of decree which may ultimately be passed against her. Against the imposition of the said condition the applicant has come to this Court in revision. Held : It is true that the trial Court has not in so many words said that the defence of the applicant is not bona fide or that it does not raise a triable issue. However, while imposing the condition as regards furnishing of security the trial Court had taken into consideration that the applicant had admitted the execution of the promissory note as well as the fact that she had taken the loan long back. The non-applicant had served the applicant with a notice of demand. The applicant gave reply of that notice through an Advocate which is on record. In that reply the applicant denied to have executed the pronote on the receipt of the consideration amount of Rs. 40,000. The case set up by the applicant in that notice was that the applicant had made a demand of Rs. 40,000 from the non-applicant but as the non-applicant had no ready money with her at that time she suggested that the applicant may execute a pronote for Rs. 40,000 in her favour and in course of time when the non-applicant would make the arrangement for money she would pay it to the applicant. Later on the applicant had no need of the money and hence she did not receive, any consideration of Rs. 40,000 from, the non-applicant and that the pronote having remained in possession of the non-applicant she had filed the suit taking advantage of that document. 2. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court exercised the jurisdiction vested in it to grant leave to the applicant to defend the suit on furnishing security. There is, therefore, no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 3. Order 37, Rule 3 (5) CPC gives the power to the Court to exercise the discretion in granting the leave to defend either conditionally or unconditionally. There is, therefore, no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 3. Order 37, Rule 3 (5) CPC gives the power to the Court to exercise the discretion in granting the leave to defend either conditionally or unconditionally. In the instant case the discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be said to be arbitrary. That apart, the learned council for the applicant could not satisfy me that the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the applicant. I am therefore, of the view that this is not a fit case wherein this court in exercise of its revisional powers should make any interference in the impugned order. AIR 1958 SC 321 and AIR 1977 SC 577 distinguished. Revision dismissed.