JUDGMET - SURESH H., J.:---In this summons for judgment taken out by the plaintiffs, the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Limited as against the defendants who are guarantors of a certain company, the defendants have sought leave to defend on the basis of the following contentions: Firstly, they contend that this is a suit on accounts and in that they refer to the fact that there is no proper index for the purpose of claiming interest of Rs. 6,00,000/- and odd as set out in Exhibit E to the plaint. Secondly, they contend that the plaintiffs have not proceeded as against the company and have not given up their security which is still available to them. Thirdly the defendants say that they are deprived of the benefits of sections 133, 134, 139 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act, which cannot be subject to any contract. Fourthly, they point out that because of certain arrangement with I.D.B.I, there has been an acceleration with regard to payment of instalments by the company and which the defendants contend is to their detriment and, therefore, that cannot be said to have been covered by the provisions of section 133 of the Indian Contract Act. Mr. parikh has pointed out that in any event the debt is fully secured by a mortgage of the properties by the company which is required to keep a minimum margin of 30% on the value of the fixed assets offered as security thereunder to the plaintiffs. 2. I have broadly indicated some of the defences and I think the defendants are entitled to, in any event, leave to defend. The only question is, on what terms? 3. I am aware of the fact that invariably wherever conditional leave to defend is granted to a defendant we pass an order for deposit of such amount as we think proper. In the present case, Mr. Parikh points out that since the debt is fully secured by the company and since the plaintiffs have not proceeded against the company keeping the security intact, there should not be any order for deposit, in a suit of this type. 4. As against this, Mr. Tulzapurkar pointed out that as far as the defendants are concerned, there is no security personally from them. 4. As against this, Mr. Tulzapurkar pointed out that as far as the defendants are concerned, there is no security personally from them. He also pointed out that under the deed of guarantee the guarantors have agreed to be treated as principal debtors and if that is so, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as against the defendants irrespective of the defences taken up by them. Mr. Tulzapurkar further submitted that if the Court relies on the security furnished by the company as security or any term for the purpose of granting any conditional leave to defend the suit, it virtually amounts to the same as saying that the plaintiffs are not entitled to proceed against the defendants without first proceeding against the company. In that connection, he submitted that our Court has taken a view that the suit as such is maintainable as against the guarantors without the plaintiffs requiring to proceed against the company. He, therefore, submitted that there should be an order for deposit. 5. Order 37, Rule 3, sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure says that it is for the Court to grant leave to defend unconditionally or "upon such terms as to the Court or Judge appears just". Therefore, I am not prepared to accept as a proposition that whereever leave to defend is to be granted conditionally, there should necessarily be an order for deposit as such. It is possible for the Court to devise such other terms as are just and proper, for the purpose of enabling a party to defend the suit in such cases. By and large the order for deposit works out as a deterrent as against the defendants who intend to defend the suit without much of a defence. But I think ultimately if a party deposits the amount in Court, it turns out to be nothing but a security for payment of the decretal amount as and when the decree is passed. But instead of deposit, there could be various other terms such as a time bound schedule for the hearing of the suit, or an order of restraint on the disposal of the defendants' property or an order to furnish any surety etc. 6. But instead of deposit, there could be various other terms such as a time bound schedule for the hearing of the suit, or an order of restraint on the disposal of the defendants' property or an order to furnish any surety etc. 6. Since, in the present case, I am of the view that the defendants' defence cannot be described as a very good defence, but still it can be considered as such a defence as would entitle the defendants to a conditional leave. But I think, in the present case, where the debt is fully secured and more than its worth, it is not necessary that I should pass an order for deposit as such. In the absence of any other terms being suggested by the Bar, the only term I can think of, is a time bound schedule for defending the suit. I, therefore, pass the following order : Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are granted conditional leave to defend the suit upon the following terms, viz., that they shall file their written statements within eight weeks from today. Upon such written statements being filed, the suit stands transferred to the list of Commercial Causes. The parties, then, shall complete discovery and inspection within four weeks thereafter. On such completion of discovery and inspection, the suit stands expedited and the plaintiffs will then have liberty to have the suit placed on board for hearing and final disposal during the first week of September 1989. Order accordingly. -----