J. K. Mehra, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking adecree against defendant No. 2 upon the said defendant failing to comply with the condition of the leave to defend imposed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. ( 2 ) IN the present case, there were three separate applications for leave to defend, one each by the three defend. ints being I. As. Nos. 6035 90, 5777 90 and 5778/90 were filed. This Court had granted unconditional leavwe to defend to all the three defendants. Feel ing aggrieved by the said order dated 11th March 1993 whereby the said applications for leave to defend were disposed of by this,court, the plaintiff moved the Hon ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave Petitions Nos. 16044, 16046 and 16047 of 1993. The Hon ble Supreme Court vide its order dated November26, 1993 passed in the aforesaid Special Leave petitionswas pleased to grant special leave granting conditional leave to the defendants 2 and 3 subject to their depositing Rs. l Crore each in this court within two months (emphasis supplied) from the date of the order. The Hon ble Supreme Court further ordered "as and when money is deposited the appellant bank may withdraw the same on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Trial Court". Defendant No. 3 duly deposited a sum of Rs. l Crore which was accepted and appropriate orders regarding its withdrawal by the plaintiff were passed by this Court in terms of the orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court. ( 3 ) IN the case of defendant No. 2, it could deposit only Rs. 56 lakhs within the time prescribed by the Supreme Court. After the expiry of the said period, a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs was also deposited which was allowed to be deposited subject to the orders of the Hon ble the Supreme, Court, as it was stated at the bar that the said defendant had approached the Hon ble Supreme Court for extension of time fordepositing the amount. The Hon ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 4th April 1994, dismissed the applications one for themodification of its order and the other for the extension of 63 time. The consequence of the dismissal of such an application is that there is no leave to defend available to defendant No. 2. The Hon ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 4th April 1994, dismissed the applications one for themodification of its order and the other for the extension of 63 time. The consequence of the dismissal of such an application is that there is no leave to defend available to defendant No. 2. The effect of the defendant not getting leave to defend would be that the plaintiffbecomes entitled to judgment forthwith under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3 (6) (a) CPC. ( 4 ) IN the present case, the defendant No. 2 having been granted a. conditional leave and the condition having not been fulfilled by the said defendant and even its application for grant of extension of time to comply with the said condition having been dismissed, leave to defend would be deemfd to have been refused to the said defendant No. 2. Reference may also be made in this behalf to the cases of Ramkarandas Radhavallabh Vs. Bhagwandas Dwarkadas reported as AIR 1965 SC 1144 andm/sd. Shanalal and etc. etc. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra reported as AIR 1989 Bombay 150. ( 5 ) IN the light of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has become entitled to a judgment forthwith and keeping in view the averments contained in the plaint and the documents, I decree the suit of the plaintiff against defendant No. 2 for a sum otrs. 2,78,37,8o 1. 20 together with prndente lite and future simple interest @ 18% p. a. from the dale of institution of the suit till realisation together with costws. I. A. stands disposed of