S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS application is directed against the order of the City Civil Court, dated 15-2-1990 whereby for granting leave to defend summary suit the learned single judge has imposed condition of payment of Rs. 8,000/ -. The petition-defendant is aggrieved by said order and has come to this Court under Section 115 Civil procedure Code. ( 2 ) IT appears that the respondent- plaintiff instituted Summary Suit No. 1406/89 to recover amount of Rs. 38,429/- with interest at the rate of 9% p. a. from the date of suit. It was claimed in such suit that various loans were advanced to the defendant. The defendant was in need of Rs. 7,500/- when he wanted to get possession of his house and said amount was advanced to the defendant. It is further alleged that the defendant was in need of money for the purpose of opening a church as that contract was given to the defendant. For that work amount of Rs. 7,000/- was paid to the defendant. It was further stated that for contract to processing division of Calico Mill further advance of Rs. 7,084. 40 ps. was made to the defendant. The plaintiff has by notice called upon the defendant to pay the amount. The defendant has even executed promissory note and has failed to pay up the amount. ( 3 ) THE defendant appeared in the suit and has filed his application for leave to defend at Exh. 38. In such application for leave to defend he inter alia contended that no promissory note is executed by him and that the signature below the promissory note is a got up and concocted one. He has further stated that there were no transaction between him and the plaintiff and that the suit was totally false and liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings and documentary evidence produced before the court the trial Court has granted leave to defend on defendant depositing amount of Rs. 8,000/ -. ( 5 ) THAT this matter was initially notified before this Court on March 19, 1994, the day on which all the judges of the High court were assigned specific matters as single judges. When the matter reached hearing it was mentioned by the clerk of the Advocate-Mr. Mayur Shah that he would come soon. Mr. 8,000/ -. ( 5 ) THAT this matter was initially notified before this Court on March 19, 1994, the day on which all the judges of the High court were assigned specific matters as single judges. When the matter reached hearing it was mentioned by the clerk of the Advocate-Mr. Mayur Shah that he would come soon. Mr. M. H. Shaikh, learned Advocate for respondent was present and he has heard. The court waited for the whole day but Mr. Mayur shah did not turn up. The matter was thereafter treated as part-heard and was ordered to be renotified for further hearing on October 3, 1994. ( 6 ) ON such renotified date none appeared for the petitioner. On going through the memo of CRA it is found that the main ground agitated by the petitioner is once the signature below the promissory note is disputed unconditional leave to defend should be granted, as a matter of course. A faint attempt is made to raise number of other disputed questions and it is prayed that the trial court should have granted unconditional leave to defend. ( 7 ) MR. M. H. Shaikh, learned Advocate for respondents has, on the other hand, pointed out that, in fact, the principle that once the signature below negotiable instrument is disputed, unconditional leave should follow, as a matter of course, would not apply to the fact-situation obtaining before this Court because the defendant has in acceptance of liability already subsequently issued a cheque for amount of Rs. 7,000/ -. The said cheque when presented before the bank was dishonoured. He, therefore, submitted that it is not a case where no transaction has taken place between the parties and defendant has failed to explain as to how and under what circumstances he issued cheque of Rs. 7,000/- in favour of the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion and jurisdiction and therefore this Court should not interfere. ( 8 ) IN my opinion, the proposition of law that once a signature below negotiable instrument is disputed by the executant thereto, unconditional leave should follow, as a matter of course, is too broadly and widely stated. The court of law is even at initial stage required to examine the correctness of such a claim. ( 8 ) IN my opinion, the proposition of law that once a signature below negotiable instrument is disputed by the executant thereto, unconditional leave should follow, as a matter of course, is too broadly and widely stated. The court of law is even at initial stage required to examine the correctness of such a claim. The trial court always has before it the admitted signature of the party, both below the application for leave to defend as well as in Vakalatnama. Even admitted signature of the executant of negotiable instrument is very often available from the other documents which are produced before the court. There are number of other factors which the court has to examine. It is very difficult for this Court to be exhaustive and to enumerate all such other relevant and attendant facts and circumstances based on which the court can impose condition in cases where the defendant has denied his signature below the negotiable instrument. However, to illustrate a few of relevant and attendant circumstances to which the court must focus its mind, it can be said that such facts and circumstances may comprise of the relationship, business or otherwise, between the parties; the nature of transactions and series of transactions and the duration during which such transactions have continued; reason, if any, given by the defendant for the need on the part of the plaintiff to forge or put up fabricated document before the court; the need for the plaintiff to bring totally false claim before the court and the forged document against the defendant with whom the plaintiff has no relation; the issuance or prior notice and the conduct of the defendant in either reply to the notice or the reason for non-reply to the notice; the fact as to whether previous or earlier transactions between the parties have already taken place; the conduct of the defendant in issuing cheque of Rs. 2,000/- in favour of plaintiff; other attendant circumstances revealing from the correspondence and contemporaneous record either maintained by the parties or by the third party like banking institutions, shroffs etc. , and large number of other factors, may also enter consideration of the court and the factors enumerated hereinabove should not be treated as exhaustive. They are merely illustrative. 2,000/- in favour of plaintiff; other attendant circumstances revealing from the correspondence and contemporaneous record either maintained by the parties or by the third party like banking institutions, shroffs etc. , and large number of other factors, may also enter consideration of the court and the factors enumerated hereinabove should not be treated as exhaustive. They are merely illustrative. It is difficult for this court to accept the proposition that once the defendant disputes his signature below promissory note or other negotiable instrument, the court is always obliged to grant unconditional leave to defend. Such a wide proposition of law cannot be accepted, and in my opinion, the trial court has always jurisdiction to examine other relevant and connected factors and circumstances ultimately to decide as to whether the defence put forth by the defendant is jejune or moonsine or whether it is genuine. ( 9 ) HAVING considered the aforesaid rival submissions of the parties and more particularly the fact that the cheque for rs. 7,000/- which was given by the petitioner-defendant was dishonoured by the bank this Court is of the opinion that some condition shall have to be imposed for granting leave to defend to the defendant. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the condition of deposit of Rs. 8,000/- should work very harsh and same is therefore reduced to Rs. 4,000/ -. ( 10 ) IN the result, application succeeds. The judgment and order of the Chamber judge of City Civil Court imposing condition of depositing of Rs. 8,000/- is substitued by reducing the amount of deposit to Rs. 4,000/ -. The petitioner is directed to deposit amount of Rs. 4,000/- in the trial Court within 6 months from today and rest of the conditions imposed in the impugned judgment and order shall thereafter apply. Hearing of suit is expedited. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. .