JUDGMENT V. D. Misra, C. J.—This is an application under Order 37, Rule 3 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to defend the suit. 2. The plaintiff is Indian Bank. The suit against the defendant is for the recovery of Rs 71,933.15 with costs and future interest at the rate of 21.5 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the payment. The suit is based on the Demand Promissory Note dated 14-7-1980. This promissory note is for Rs. 45,798.96. By this promissory note the defendant has undertaken to pay the amount with interest thereon at the rate of 8 per cent per annum over the official rate of Reserve Bank of India with a minimum of 17 percent per annum with quarterly rests from the date of loan to the date of payment in full. 3. The case of the plaintiff is this. On 7-10-77 the defendant opened a current account with the plaintiff and simultaneously requested for over-draft facility in this account. The plaintiff accepted the request of the defendant and the latter was allowed over-draft facility to the extent of Rs. 25,000 in the said current account. On 13-2-1978 the plaintiff called upon the defendant to pay the entire amount failing which the plaintiff would take steps to recover it. On 21st September, 1978 the defendant asked for being sanctioned Regular Open Cash Credit Loan facility in the said account. This request was accepted. The defendant executed a Demand Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff at Simla for Rs. 25,000/- as security for the said over-draft. This is dated 21-9-1978. It shows that the defendant has undertaken to pay the amount with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum over the official rate of the Reserve Bank of India with a minimum of 15 per cent per annum from the date to the date of payment in full with quarterly rests. The defendant also executed an agreement for Demand Cash Credit on the hypothecation of movable property (wrongly written in para 6 of the plaint as immovable property). By this hypothecation agreement the defendant hypothecated the timber stored at Dharampur in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendant failed to pay. The plaintiff served a notice dated 30th April, 1980 through its Advocate calling upon the defendant to pay the entire amount. By this hypothecation agreement the defendant hypothecated the timber stored at Dharampur in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendant failed to pay. The plaintiff served a notice dated 30th April, 1980 through its Advocate calling upon the defendant to pay the entire amount. The defendant requested for time. On 14-7-1980 there was a debit balance of Rs. 45,798.96 including interest as on 30-6-19:0. The defendant acknowledged his liability by tendering to the plaintiff a balance confirmation letter dated 14-7-1980. On the same date the defendant executed the Demand Promissory Note referred to earlier, 4. On 30-6-1980 the debit balance stood at Rs. 55,037,00 in the plaintiffs books of accounts. This amount was acknowledged by the defendant on 31-7-1981 by signing and tendering the balance confirmation letter. Despite various demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay. On 4-2-1982 the plaintiff sent a notice through its Advocate calling upon the defendant to pay the amount but the defendant did not pay, 5. The defendant in the present application does not deny executing the promissory notes and signing the said confirmation letters. He only refers to the first promissory note and states that he was asked to sign a blank promissory note which he "readily obliged in view of accommodation and help given by the plaintiff." Of course, the defendant has his own story to tell about the circumstances in which he was granted the Open Cash Credit Loan facility. According to the defendant he was persuaded by an employee of the Bank to attend auction at Poanta Sahib for purchasing one forest. It is stated that the defendant purchased a forest for Rs, 92,000/- in the name of M/s Sofat Brothers of Dharampur. A sum of Rs. 18,400/-was to be deposited as 20% security against the auction bid of the forest and the plaintiff issued a FDR for the same amount which was pledged in the name of DFO, Simla. The defend ant states that it was then that he was asked to sign the blank promissory note. The defendant admits that he obtained a cheque-book and asked for an advance of Rs. 20,000/- from the plaintiff which was advanced by the plaintiff on 15-10-1977, It is stated that the defendant attended other auctions at the persuasion of the plaintiff. The defendant got Open Cash Credit limit of Rs. The defendant admits that he obtained a cheque-book and asked for an advance of Rs. 20,000/- from the plaintiff which was advanced by the plaintiff on 15-10-1977, It is stated that the defendant attended other auctions at the persuasion of the plaintiff. The defendant got Open Cash Credit limit of Rs. 50,000/- during December, 1977 for M/s Modern Timber Co., Simla, as well as for M/s jai Hind Timber Co., Dharampur. The defendant states that he is connected with both these firms. The defendant goes on to aver that during 1978-79 he entered into partnership with one Shri Varinder Dutt Sharma, a forest lessee, and had to invest Rs, 50,000/- which was invested by giving short-term deposits. He narrates how he was able to get deposits for the plaintiff. According to the defendant, in October, 1979 some of the deposits went to the other banks which offended the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff started making further inquiries from the defendant. 6. I find that in the application not a word has been said by the defend ant to deny the aforementioned averments of the plaintiff. It is not his case that he signed the promissory potes, specially the one dated 14-7-1980, without consideration. On his own showing the plaintiff had been advancing him monies. I find that the letter dated 30-6-1981 written by the plaintiff to the defendant calling upon him to confirm the balance was signed in confirmation of the balance by the defendant on 31st July, 1981. The defendant has put the date himself under his signature. In other words, the defendant has not disputed in any manner whatsoever about this confirmation. On these facts, therefore, the defendant does not raise any triable issue, 7. The defendants states that no interest was payable by him since most of the amounts were withdrawn in the shape of fixed deposit receipts which were pledged to DFO by way of security. It is also stated that the suit is not maintainable since the promissory note was not presented to the defendant for honouring the same. It is then averred that the hypothecated goods are still lying. The claim of penal interest at the rate of 21.5 per cent per annum from the date of institution of this suit till realisation is also challenged. 8. It is then averred that the hypothecated goods are still lying. The claim of penal interest at the rate of 21.5 per cent per annum from the date of institution of this suit till realisation is also challenged. 8. The defendant while signing the confirmation letter on 31st July, 1981 knew that interest had been specifically charged and had been added to the out standings. This fact is, stated explicitly by the plaintiff in the said letter. Moreover, the promissory note dated 14-7-80 as well as the previous promissory note expressly mention a rate of interest which was payable by the defendant. Therefore, the defence that ho is not liable to pay anything is absolutely sham. He was dealing with a bank in the latters ordinary course of business specifically agreeing to pay the interest at the rate mentioned in the promissory notes and thereafter confirming the balance from time to time. 9. As regards the question whether a demand was made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not cared to deny the notices served on him through the Advocate of the plaintiff, as well as the latter’s written by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to pay the amount. 10. The goods consisting of timber lying at Dharampur have simply been hypothecated and the defendant has not even dared so aver that these are lying in the custody of the plaintiff. On the other hand the plaintiff has categorically stated that "the goods were only hypothecated and the same remained in possession of the defendant." 11. The only question on which a triable issue can be said to have been raised was with respect to the renal interest at the rate of 21.5 per cent per annum claimed by the plaintiff from the date of the suit till final payment, Mr. Chander Paul, learned Advocate for the plaintiff, stated during arguments that the plaintiff gives up his claim to the penal interest and confines his claim to the interest according to the agreement, 12. I, therefore, do not find any triable issue having been raised by the defendant. 13. Mr. Chander Paul, learned Advocate for the plaintiff, stated during arguments that the plaintiff gives up his claim to the penal interest and confines his claim to the interest according to the agreement, 12. I, therefore, do not find any triable issue having been raised by the defendant. 13. Mr. Rajive Mehta, learned counsel for the defendant, has referred to the Supreme Court decisions in M/s Mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers v. M/s Basic Equipment Corporation, [1976 (4) Supreme Court Cases 687] and Santosh Kumar v, Bhai Mool Singh, [AIR 1958 SC 321] in support of his contention that the defendant should be allowed leave to defend unconditionally. In the case of Santosh Kumar it was ruled that wherever the defence raises a triable issue, leave must be given, and it should be given unconditionally other wise the leave may be illusory. The test laid down was "to see whether the defence raises a real issue and not a sham one, in the sense that, if the facts alleged by the defendant are established, there would be a good, or even a plausible, defence on those facts/ In the case of M/s Mechelec Engineers the Supreme Court while affirming its earlier decision approved the principles laid down in Kiranmoyee Dassi v. J. Chatterjee, [AIR 1949 Calcutta 479], by Das, J. One of the principles is : "..........if the defendant has no defence or the defence set-up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is not entitled to leave to defend". Still another principle approved is : "If the defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then although ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sigh judgment, the court may protect the plaintiff by only allowing the defence to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into court or otherwise secured and give leave to the defendant on such condition, and thereby show mercy to the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence." It is the latter principle which is canvassed on behalf of the defendant. But in the instant case, as I have already pointed out, no triable issue has been raised by the defendant. But in the instant case, as I have already pointed out, no triable issue has been raised by the defendant. As I understand, the aforementioned principles approved by the Supreme Court, conditional leave to defend may be given in a case where the defence can be said to be illusory or sham or practically moonshine. However, as already discussed, I do not find any defence at all being raised by the defendant. I would, therefore, refuse leave to the defendant to defend the suit and dismiss the application. Application dismissed.