ORDER: The civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal dated 20.4.2000 made in I.A.No.2987 of 1999 in O.S.No.5643 of 1999 by the Court of VII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras. 2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the petitioner has filed a petition in I.A.No.2987 of 1999 on the file of the Court of VII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, seeking leave to defend the suit filed by the respondent herein under O.37 Rule 3(5) of C.P.C. on ground that no written agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent herein; that the petitioner never agreed for 3% interest; that he stopped using the credit card in the year 1997; that he did not owe a sum of Rs.1,51,161.63 to the respondent/plaintiff and as such, he seeks leave to defend the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 3. In the counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the lower Court, he would submit that this petition has been filed only to protract the proceedings; that only after undertaking and agreeing to the terms and conditions, the petitioner/defendant obtained the credit card; that the petitioner/defendant had not settled the amount due to the respondent/plaintiff and he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,55,16 6.33 to the respondent/plaintiff and hence, there is no justification to allow the petitioner to defend the suit and hence, would pray to dismiss the above petition. 4. The trial Court after having considered the facts pleaded by the parties and having regard to the materials placed on record would ultimately dismiss the above petition. It is only testifying the validity of the said order, the petitioner/defendant has come forward to file this civil revision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the above civil revision petition. 5. It is only testifying the validity of the said order, the petitioner/defendant has come forward to file this civil revision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the above civil revision petition. 5. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, besides reiterating those averments which have been traced in the above petition as extracted supra, would cite a judgment delivered in Prabakaran, N. v. Citibank, (2001)3 M.L.J. 540 : (2001)4 C.T.C. 178 , wherein it is held therein: "The petitioner reiterated all the averments made in his affidavit in support of the petition to leave to defend and he also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in M/s.Mecthale Engineers and Manufacturers v. M/s.Basic Equipment Corporation, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 577, which was followed by this Court in Ramalingam v. Basavalingam, (1991)1 M.L.J. 307 : A.I.R. 1991 Mad. 274, wherein principles were laid down while considering the application for granting leave to defend. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Court below, after referring to a letter dated 6.1.1977, which speaks of the closure of the loan, comes to a conclusion that the petitioner is bound to prove that the old loan has been discharged. This is what the learned Judge has said in his judgment. ....In an application for grant of leave to defend, the petitioner is not bound to prove to the Court his case. The Court is also not called upon at that juncture to test the veracity of the defence set up by the petitioner. What the Court must do is to find whether the applicant has raised triable issues and whether defence is not sham or illusory and whether the petitioner has raised such issues, which if proved at that time of trial, will result in dismissal of the suit, if so he is entitled to be given leave to defend." 6. What the Court must do is to find whether the applicant has raised triable issues and whether defence is not sham or illusory and whether the petitioner has raised such issues, which if proved at that time of trial, will result in dismissal of the suit, if so he is entitled to be given leave to defend." 6. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what could be understood from the whole of the affair connected to the above civil revision petition is that, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, has sought for defending the suit filed by the other side and still, the Court below refused to grant unconditional leave to defend, the petitioner has come forward to file the above revision invoking the provision of O.37, Rule 3(5), C.P.C., and it is this provision of law which is relevant for consideration and necessary for being extracted, which runs as follows: "O.37, Rule 3(5), C.P.C.: The defendant may, at any time within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, by affidavit or otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the Court or Judge to be just: Provided that leave to defend shall not be refused unless the Court is satisfied that the facts disclosed by the defendant do not indicate that he has a substantial defence to raise or that the defence intended to be put up by the defendant is frivolous or vexatious: Provided further that, where a part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in Court." In the context of the wording of the above provision of law and the expression given by the learned single Judge of this Court in her order passed in a similar civil revision petition reported in Prabakaran, N. v. Citibank, (2001)3 M.L.J. 540 : (2001)4 C.T.C. 178 , (the relevant portion of which is extracted supra) and applying these norms of law to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has a concrete case for defence in the suit filed by the respondent, since he has raised triable issues, and the said defence cannot under any circumstance be termed as sham and illusory, and therefore, it is only desirable to permit him to defend the suit effectively and the lower Court should have ordered permitting the petitioner to defend the suit, but instead, it has rejected his request to defend the same, as a result of which, this Court has to arrive at the only conclusion that is warranted in the circumstances of the case to set aside the order passed by the lower Court. In result, (i) the above civil revision petition succeeds and the same is allowed; (ii) the fair and decretal dated 20.4.2000 made in I.A.No.2987 of 19 99 in O.S.No.5643 of 1999 by the Court of VII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, is hereby set aside; (iii) however, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.