Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 16. 9. 97 ofthe Additional District Judge, granting leave to defend the Suit, subject to thecondition that petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 within four weeksfailing which the application for leave to defend, would be dismissed and thesuit shall stand decreed. ( 2 ) THE respondent had instituted a Suit for recovery of Rs. 4,30,000. 00 alongwith pendentelite and future interest. The respondents, who are jewellers,claimed in the Suit that the petitioners had purchased jewellery items worth Rs. 2,50,000. 00 vide bills No. 005 and 006 both dated 5. 2. 1994, and acknowledged thereceipt of the jewels on the copy of the bills. The petitioners had issued 5 chequesof Rs. 50,000. 00 each bearing Nos. 544251 to 544255 dated 5. 2. 94,20. 2. 94, 7. 3. 94,21. 3. 94 and 25. 4. 94 respectively. The said cheques were dishonoured. Therespondent/plaintiff thereupon, after issuing the notice filed a complaint undersection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the five dishonoured cheques. Subsequently the present suit was filed for recovery of the principal sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 and the interest thereon of Rs. 1,80,000. 00 @ 24% p. a. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional District Judge in a detailed reasoned judgment, considered the various grounds raised in the application for leave to defend. Healso considered the petitioners prayer for stay of the civil suit pending thecriminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Aftera detailed discussion of the various grounds raised in the application for leaveto defend, learned Additional District Judge reached the conclusion that thepetitioners application for leave to defend be allowed subject to deposit of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 i. e. the principal amount. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Mr. A. S. Chandhiok urged that the learned Additional District Judge committed a grave error in travelling beyondthe grounds set out in the application for leave to defend, by weighing theevidentiary value evidence of the documents as well as prejudging pleas, andthen reaching a conclusion that the defence was bad. It is submitted that thelearned Additional District Judge failed to appreciate that the transaction wasa sale by samples and the jewels supplied not being as per samples, the petitionerwas free to return the same and was not liable to pay the price of the jewels. It is submitted that thelearned Additional District Judge failed to appreciate that the transaction wasa sale by samples and the jewels supplied not being as per samples, the petitionerwas free to return the same and was not liable to pay the price of the jewels. Thecheques had been obtained from the petitioner on the representation that thejewels were as per samples ordered and of good quality. Learned Counsel alsoreferred TO to the unexplained delay in presentation of the cheques for a period ofover two months, which supported the petitioner s version. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel argued that the learned Additional District Judge had failed to give due weight to the petitioners plea that the total transaction wasfor Rs. 2,80,000. 00 and the sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 had been given as advance by a cheque drawn in the name of respondent s brother. Learned Counsel alsoreferred TO to what he described as contradictions in the stand taken by therespondent in the present proceedings and those under Section 138 of thenegotiable Instruments Act. In the present proceedings, it was contended thatthe respondent s brother was having separate and independent business whilein the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it wasclaimed that brother was not doing any business. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision Mis. Mechalec Engineering and Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation,reported at AIR 1977 Supreme Court 577 to urge that the petitioner s case fell within the para 8 (c) i. e. case of not making positively and immediately a defence, but showing a defence which may be established during trial. Thepetitioner it was claimed was entitled to leave to defend, but the Court couldimpose condition as to "time or mode of trial but not as payment into Court orfurnishing security". Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on M/s. International Computer Consultant v. Home Computers Services, 68 (1997)DLT 407, where the Court granted unconditional leave to contest, when thecheques issued was an undated one. Although there was no agreement forpayment of interest, but the suit has been decreed with interest. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on M/s. International Computer Consultant v. Home Computers Services, 68 (1997)DLT 407, where the Court granted unconditional leave to contest, when thecheques issued was an undated one. Although there was no agreement forpayment of interest, but the suit has been decreed with interest. Learnedcounsel relied on the above case in support of his contention that the Court atthe stage of considering, leave to defend, was not required to record a findingon disputed question of fact since the defendant was not required to adduceevidence and proof by which he was going to defend ultimately. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the submissons of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge has considered the variousgrounds raised. The petitioners had pleaded that the respondent had left apacket containing the jewels which had not been inspected and the post datedcheques were given on 5. 2. 94. Further that the goods supplied were not evenworth Rs. 1,00,000. 00. These pleas neither appear to be credible nor inspire anyconfidence. Respondent on the other hand, had denied the sale as sale bysamples and submitted that the jewels had been duly inspected and thepetitioners after being fully satisfied as to their quality, issued the cheques. Further, that the transactions in which a cheque of Rs. 30,000. 00 was issued to therespondent s brother was a separate one and not connected with the presenttransaction. The cheques in favour of the respondent s brother was dated18. 12. 1993 for Rs. 30,000. 00 and was encashed on 22. 1293, while the negotiationfor the present transaction itself, even as per the petitioner, had commenced on29. 12. 1993. The learned Additional District Judge has also rightly held that therewas no ground for stay of the civil suit during the pendency of the proceedingsunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As regards the petitioner ssubmission of there being a contradiction in the explanation with regard towhether the respondent s brother was not carrying on any business or washaving a separate and independent business, the same is hardly of any consequence so as to affect the decision in this case specially when the cheque for thesame is said to be dated 18. 12. 93 and the present transaction even as per thepetitioner commenced only on 29. 12. 93. 12. 93 and the present transaction even as per thepetitioner commenced only on 29. 12. 93. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for thepetitioner, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Additionaldistrict Judge granting conditional leave to the petitioner was fully justified andit cannot be faulted with. The present case in my view, clearly falls in thecategory of cases where conditional leave should have been granted subject todeposit of the amount as has been rightly done. ( 8 ) IN the instant case also, the learned Additional District Judge relying on an earlier decision of this Court in Rama Vision Ltd. v. Babbar India Pvt. Ltd. , 67 (1997) DLT 821, has directed the deposit of principal amount leaving thequestion of interest to be adjudicated. I find no material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of his submission, had prayed that in case the Court was not inclined to entertain the revisionpetition, further time be granted for making the deposit. In the circumstances,the time for making the deposit of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 is extended by two weeks fromtoday. The revision petition has no merit and is dismissed except for extensionof time as aforesaid.