PADMA KHASTGIR, J. ( 1 ) IN a suit filed by the respondents Biswanath Dhandhania and Ors. against Cycle Corporation of India Ltd. the appellant herein, an application for final judgment under Chapter 13a of the Rules of this Court was moved before Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta whereupon the learned Judge passed a decree directing the appellant to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 12,13,482/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and cost assessed at Rs. 1,700/- of such application. Mr. Gour Roychowdhury, the learned lawyer was appointed as Receiver to hold the decretal sum. The learned Judge proceeded on the basis that there was an unequivocal admission of liability by the appellant in respect of a sum of Rs. 12,13,482. 95 and the respondents/plaintiffs were not in any way concerned with the liabilities of their sister concerns. ( 2 ) BISWANATH Dhandhania and Radheshyam Dhandhania carried on business in partnership in the name and style of M/s. General Oil Co. Biswanath Dhandhania is also the sole Proprietor of Sri Hanuman Trading Co. Biswanath Dhandhania, Bajranglal Dhandhania and Pawan Kumar Dhandhania carried on business in copartnership under the name and style of M/s. Premier Trading Corporation. Biswanath Dhandhania also carried on business in co-partnership under the name and style of Industrial Trade Centre. Biswanath Dhandhania is a common partner in all the three firms of General Oil Co. , Premier Trading Corporation and Industrial Trade Centre and the sole proprietor of Sri Hanuman Trading Co. The appellant Cycle Corporation of India had various transactions with each of the said concerns. Various correspondences that passed by and between the parties and relied upon by the parties indicate that there were requests made by one concern and the other to the Cycle Corporation of India to transfer their debit account to one sister concern to the other. Under the circumstances the accounts of the said concerns were combined and adjusted from time to time. Biswanath Dhandhania and Radheshyam Dhandhania on 29th Sept. 1986 filed the suit against Cycle Corporation of India for recovery of Rs. 20 lakhs and in such suit as indicated earlier on an application under Chapter 13a the judgment was passed for a sum of Rs. 12,13,482/- on the basis of an admission stated to have been made by the appellant by its letter dt. 2nd of June, 1986. 1986 filed the suit against Cycle Corporation of India for recovery of Rs. 20 lakhs and in such suit as indicated earlier on an application under Chapter 13a the judgment was passed for a sum of Rs. 12,13,482/- on the basis of an admission stated to have been made by the appellant by its letter dt. 2nd of June, 1986. Cycle Corporation of India on 21st of Mar. 1987 filed a suit against Biswanath Dhandhania and the other firms for recovery of a sum of Rs. 88 lakhs. Being aggrieved the present appeal had been preferred from the said impugned judgment. ( 3 ) THE main contention of the appellant was that the learned Judge while passing a final decree under Chapter 13a in a summary procedure should have taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the letters written by Cycle Corporation of India in entirety instead of splitting the said letter and relying only on a portion thereof as an admission of liability. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant in the said application under Chapter 13a the appellant raised bona fide defence and disputed the claim of the plaintiffs, the accounts maintained by and between the parties require detailed investigation and scrutiny. In that view of the matter, the admission of liability without taking into consideration the context and also the defence triable, issue raised in the affidavit in opposition did not amount to an unconditional and unequivocal admission on the part of the appellant. A portion of the letter where such admission had been made should not have been taken in isolation for the purpose of passing a final decree when the appellant by letters dt. 29th July, 1986 and 4th of Aug. 1986 informed the respondents of the consolidation and adjustment of accounts which had not been disputed by them. In fact the appellant had filed a suit being Suit No. 219 of 1987 claiming a decree for Rs. 88,91,028. 67 jointly and severally against the respondents. Moreover on the date of the decree, the respondent No. 3 stood dissolves and ceased to exist. Inasmuch as triable issues had been raised by the appellant it was contended that the learned Trial Judge should have relegated the parties to the suit for determination of mutual claims and obligations instead of passing a final decree in a summary manner. Moreover on the date of the decree, the respondent No. 3 stood dissolves and ceased to exist. Inasmuch as triable issues had been raised by the appellant it was contended that the learned Trial Judge should have relegated the parties to the suit for determination of mutual claims and obligations instead of passing a final decree in a summary manner. The letter dt. 2nd June, 1986 was in reply to the letter dt. 12th of Apr. 1986 dealing with the said letter paragraph-wise giving particulars of short supply, excess rate, rejection of materials, adjustment of accounts so on and so forth including rebate, price, total number of cycles and accessories supplied not only to M/s. Premier Trading Corpn. but also to its sister concerns and/or associated concerns. There was also a demand for supply of the West Bengal Sales Tax Declaration Forms. In the last paragraph, the Cycle Corporation of India requested to clear the dues of Rs. 57,41,554. 80 payable to them and also furnish the West Bengal Sales Tax Declaration Forms against such purchases of Cycles and accessories from the appellant. In the letter dt. 12th of Apr. 1986 addressed to the Cycle Corporation of India by Biswanath Dhandhania for Premier Trading Corporation the said respondent had brought it to the notice of the General Manager, Finance, of the appellant the various position of liability in respect of Premier Trading Corporation as also its sister concerns Sri Hanuman Trading Co. , General Oil Co. In the said letter under the subject settlement of accounts Premier Trading Corpn. also requested the appellant to explain the big difference of the outstanding to the tune of Rs. 52,10,496/ -. The said respondent also requested the appellant to settle the accounts and for that purpose requested to send a representative of the said concerns Cycle Corporation of India for Settlement of accounts. In the ultimate paragraph of the said letter Biswanath Dhandhania stated that the said representative should be sent immediately by the appellant Cycle Corporation of India for settlement of accounts, and if after such settlement any amount was found due and payable by them to the appellant they would pay to Cycle Corpn. of India and would adjust the amount by supplying regularly. From such statement made in their letter dt. 12th of Apr. of India and would adjust the amount by supplying regularly. From such statement made in their letter dt. 12th of Apr. 1986 it appears that the accounts of all the sister concerns were treated together and the respondent sought for an adjustment of accounts by and between the said concerns and the appellant. In the suit filed by Cycle Corporation of India, Cycle Corporation of India had made claims against Sri Hanuman Trading Co. Premier Trading Corpn. General Oil Co. and Industrial Trade Centre. All the said concerns were the associates and/or sister concerns and as such approached the appellant to transfer the account of one concern to the other. The defendant No. 1 as a partner of defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 8 repeatedly requested the plaintiff to consolidate and/or amalgamate the respective accounts and to prepare an up-to-date consolidated account and in fact such a consolidation was made as a result whereof a sum of Rs. 56,02,244. 17 became due and payable by the respondent to the appellant. The appellant claimed in the suit a decree for Rs. 88,91,028. 67 from the defendants. The series of letters annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the present appellant indicate that the respondents by various letters requested the appellant to transfer the debit amount of one sister concern to the other. It indicates that the parties themselves agreed to consolidate the various accounts. ( 4 ) IN the affidavit affirmed for and on behalf of the appellant, the Secretary and the Principal Officer stated how the claim of Rs. 12,13,482. 95 of the respondent No. 3 General Oil Co. stood adjusted and it was duly informed of such adjustment by letter dt. 2nd of June, 1986. There was an assertion in the said affidavit that by letter dt. 2nd of June, 1986 the appellant did not admit any liability. On the contrary, at the request of the plaintiff made in four different letters all dt. 30th of Oct. 1984 the accounts between the appellant and all the four concerns of the respondent were consolidated and as on 31st of March, 1986 a sum of Rs. 57,48,364/- became due and payable to the appellant by the respondent. On the contrary, at the request of the plaintiff made in four different letters all dt. 30th of Oct. 1984 the accounts between the appellant and all the four concerns of the respondent were consolidated and as on 31st of March, 1986 a sum of Rs. 57,48,364/- became due and payable to the appellant by the respondent. In paragraph 11 of the said affidavit the deponent categorically stated that the appellant had a complete defence against the claim of the plaintiffs and was entitled to a counterclaim of the said sum of Rs. 56,02,244. 17, Rs. 256/- and Rs. 9,35,589/ -. In paragraph 7 it was averred that in fact Suit No. 215 of 1987 between Cycle Corporation of India and Biswanath Dhandhania claiming a sum of Rs. 88,91,028. 67 was filed and the plaint in that suit was treated as a part of such affidavit. The assertions made in the above affidavit indicate that in fact a triable issue had been raised by the appellant which was bona fide and needed due consideration. ( 5 ) IN the affidavit of reply filed thereto by Radheshyam Dhandhania it was denied that at the request of Biswanath Dhandhania with the consent of the other respondents the said sum of Rs. 12,13,452. 95/- was credited to the account of Sri Hanuman Trading Corporation. This Court's notice was drawn to the fact that the said affidavit-in-reply was not properly verified inasmuch as there was no verification of the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 20 of the said Affidavit-in-reply. Under the circumstances, it was contended on behalf of the appellant relying upon the case reported in 30 Cal WN 706 and AIR 1988 SC 1987 that in view of non-compliance of the provisions of O. 19 R. 3 of the Civil P. C. there had been no denial of the contentions raised by the appellant in its affidavit in opposition. In the case reported in AIR 1988 SC 1987 Smt. Savitramma v. Cicil Naronha the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were of the view that it is necessary that a party stating facts must disclose as to what facts are true to his personal knowledge, information or belief. If the statement of fact is based on information, the source of such information must be disclosed in the affidavit. If the statement of fact is based on information, the source of such information must be disclosed in the affidavit. An affidavit which did not comply with the provisions for verification has no probative value and it is liable to be rejected. The whole purpose of framing such rules for verification is to enable the court to find out as to whether it would be safe to act on such evidence and it is only on the basis of verification it is possible to test the genuineness and authenticity of the allegations made by the deponent for which he can be held responsible. Inasmuch as the verification of the affidavit was defective, the learned Judges observed that it would not be safe to proceed or rely on such allegation. The learned Judges took exception to the affidavits which were affirmed in a slipshod manner. Under the circumstances, the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that such affidavit-in-reply without proper verification should have been rejected by the learned court below as the case made out in the affidavit-in-opposition remained unchallenged. The learned Trial Court should have considered the entire pleadings, the various correspondences and the case made out by the parties. ( 6 ) IN the case reported in AIR 1988 SC 612 Governing Body of Dayanand Anglo Vedic College v. Padmanabha Padhy the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were of the view that a portion of the admission could not be truncated and accepted while rejecting the other part. Relying upon the case reported in AIR 1915 PC 2 the learned Judges were of the view that although it is possible for a tribunal to accept part and reject the rest of any witnesses testimony, so far admission in pleading is concerned, it cannot be so dissected. It may be accepted as a whole or not at all. ( 7 ) RELYING on the case reported in 49 Cal WN 246 the learned lawyer on behalf of the appellant contended that inasmuch as a good defence had been shown or at least a triable issue had been raised, unconditionally leave to contest the suit should have been granted. In the case reported in AIR 1977 SC 577 , Mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn. In the case reported in AIR 1977 SC 577 , Mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn. it was held that only in cases where the defence is patently dishonest or so unreasonable that it could not reasonably be expected to succeed or if the defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then only ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is not entitled to leave to defend. On the principles laid down by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court can the defence raised by the appellant in such an application be considered illusory, sham patently dishonest or so unreasonable that the appellant could not get the chance to defend the suit with regard to the decree that had been passed in an application under Chapter 13a? ( 8 ) IN the case reported in AIR 1958 SC 321 Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh it was observed by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court that although court is given a discretion under O. 37 R. 3 of the Civil P. C. but such discretion must be exercised along judicial lines and that in turn means in consonance with the principles of natural justice that form the foundation of our laws. Whenever the defence raises a triable issue leave must be given unconditionally otherwise, the leave may be illusory. If the Court is of the opinion that the defence is not bona fide then it can impose conditions. Taken by large the object of passing a conditional order is to see that the defendant does not unnecessarily prolong the litigation and prevent the plaintiff from obtaining an early decree by raising untenable and frivolous defence. Where speedy decisions are desirable in the interest of trade and commerce. In general, therefore, the test laid down by the learned Judges was to see whether the defence raises a real issue and not a sham one. Ordinarily, an appeal will not be entertained against the exercise of such discretion that has been exercised along sound judicial lines. But if the discretion is exercised arbitrarily or is based on a misunderstanding of the principles that govern its exercise, then interference is called for if there has been a resultant failure of justice. Ordinarily, an appeal will not be entertained against the exercise of such discretion that has been exercised along sound judicial lines. But if the discretion is exercised arbitrarily or is based on a misunderstanding of the principles that govern its exercise, then interference is called for if there has been a resultant failure of justice. ( 9 ) UNDER the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the triable issues raised by the appellant and the defence seem to be bona fide and the appellant should get opportunity to test the claim of the plaintiffs. As a result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. ( 10 ) PRAYER for stay is refused. ( 11 ) A. SENGUPTA, J. :- I agree. Appeal allowed.