JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 19.11.1992, passed by A.D.J. No. 2 Kota, in Civil Suit No. 61/1992, by which the said Court rejected the application of the defendant-Petitioners for granting leave to defend the suit. 2. Brief relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff non-Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 93,830.70 p. alongwith interest. The Petitioner filed an application, under Order 37 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code and prayed that they may be granted leave to defend the suit.The learned A.D.J. No. 2 Kota, vide his Order dated 19.11.1992, rejected the said application against the order by which the application for grant of leave to defend was rejected, the Petitioners have filed the present revision. 3. I have heard Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the defence raised by the Petitioners is neither sham or illusory not the Court held so. And under these circumstances, there was no question of rejecting the application of the Petitioners for grant of leave to defend the suit. Mr. Kuhad further submits that under these circumstances, at the best the Court should have directed the Petitioners to submit solvent security or bank guarantee, but should not have rejected the application. He submits that the application has been rejected in arbitrary way. Counsel for the Petitioners further contends that the Petitioners are prepared to submit bank guarantee of the decreelal amount within one month from today and will keep the same subsisting during the pendency of the suit. 4. On the other hand, Shri Shiv Garg, Counsel for the plaintiff non-Petitioner submits that the learned Civil Judge has applied his judicial mind while rejecting the application for leave to defend and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the discretionary order passed by the learned Judge. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present case falls under category (e), set-out by the Apex Court in its judgment passed in M/s. Mechalec Engineers Corp. (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 577). 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present case falls under category (e), set-out by the Apex Court in its judgment passed in M/s. Mechalec Engineers Corp. (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 577). Under these circumstances, in my opinion, interest of plaintiff could have been protected by granting leave to defend the suit on furnishing bank guarantee or on depositing the amount in Court or in giving solvent security of the suit amount. but the learned Judge without applying its judicial mind rejected the applications of the Petitioners in arbitrary way. In my opinion the order passed by the learned Judge is perverse and deserves to be set-aside and in case it is allowed to stand, it would cause serious hardship to the Petitioners. 6. Consequently, I allow the revision, and set-aside the order passed by the learned Judge, on the condition that the Petitioners will submit bank-guarantee within one month from today. In case the Petitioners submit the bank-guarantee, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge shall stand set-aside. But in case the Petitioners fails to submit the Bank- guarantee as mentioned above, the revision shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court. 7. The learned A.D.J. No. 2, Kota, is directed to decide the suit expeditiously, as far as possible within a period of two years from today. 8. Parties to bear their own costs.Revision allowed. *******