ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant bank against the respondents under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,36,604.87 paise. The respondents moved an application under Order 37 Rule 3 seeking leave to defend. On the said application the trial Court namely Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, passed an order dated September 21, 1993 granting permission to the defendants to contest the suit subject to their furnishing bank guarantee of the amount of the suit. The respondents filed a revision petition against the said order of the Senior Sub Judge which has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated March 25, 1994. The High Court has granted unconditional leave to defend to the respondents. 3. We have perused the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the application for leave seeking to defend the suit that was filed on behalf of the respondents before the trial Court. In our opinion, this was not a case in which the High Court should have granted unconditional leave to defend the suit. Having regard to the facts an circumstances of this case, we are unable to hold that the trial Court has committed any error in permitting the respondents to defend the suit subject to their furnishing the bank guarantee of the amount of the suit. 4. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the order passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, permitting the respondents to contest the suit subject to their furnishing the bank guarantee of the amount of the suit. The said bank guarantee should be furnished by July 31, 1996. No costs. Allowed.