Judgment :- Aggrieved by dismissal of Application filed under O.37 R.3 C.P.C declining leave to defend suit, Defendant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 2. Whether Impugned Order declining leave to defend the Suit on the ground that no triable issue has been disclosed suffers from serious infirmity is the point falling for consideration in this Revision Petition. 3. This Revision arises on the following facts:- Respondent/Plaintiff filed summary suit based on Promissory Note in O.S.No.6064 of 2005 against Defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,82,000/- together with future interest. The Petitioner/Defendant filed Application seeking leave to defend contending that he has never borrowed loan amount and never executed Promissory Note as claimed by the Plaintiff. The Petitioner/Defendant has further alleged that Suit Promissory Note is forged one and signature found in the Promissory Note is not the signature of the Petitioner/Defendant. 4. Holding that Petitioner has raised vague allegations in order to evade his liability to pay the dues to the Respondent and further holding that the Petitioner has not raised any triable issue, Court below dismissed the Application, which is impugned in this Revision. 5. Placing reliance upon number of decisions, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that disputes cannot be determined even at the time of inception. It was further submitted that the Defendant has raised plea of forgery, which is triable issue sufficient enough to grant leave to defend the Suit. 6. Drawing attention of Court to various transactions, learned counsel for Respondent/Plaintiff has submitted that vague allegation of denial of signature in Promissory Suit cannot be the ground for granting leave to defend. It was further submitted that absolutely there was no necessity for Respondent to forge the signature of the Petitioner and it is the duty of the Petitioner to prove such baseless allegations. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: (i) N. Krishnan Vs T.R. Kuppusamy (1998 (II) C.T.C.730); (ii)V. Samuel Vs Thabak Finance Corporation ( 2001 (3) C.T.C. 420 ); (iii) N. Prabakaran Vs Manager, City Bank ( 2001 (4) C.T.C. 178 ) and (iv) K. Vasantha Devi and Another ..Vs.. Mahesh Kumar Rathi ( 2004 (3) C.T.C. 321 ). Reliance is placed on the above decisions for the contention that when there was triable issue in the sense when there was fair dispute to be tried, Court cannot reject the defence of the Defendant. Mahesh Kumar Rathi ( 2004 (3) C.T.C. 321 ). Reliance is placed on the above decisions for the contention that when there was triable issue in the sense when there was fair dispute to be tried, Court cannot reject the defence of the Defendant. The test of triable issue is to find out whether the Defendant would be able to resist the suit successfully. If he proves his case, it is left to the discretion of the Trial Court to conclude on materials placed before it whether triable issues have arisen. The well established principle which govern O.37 R.3 C.P.C is laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers Vs Basic Equipment Corporation (A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 577). Holding that the grounds upon which leave to defend was granted were quite reasonable and observing that High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of grant of leave, the Supreme Court referred to Kiranmoyee Dassi and Another Vs Dr. J. Chatterji (49 CWN 246), in which after a comprehensive review of the authorities, the following propositions were formulated in considering the application to grant unconditional leave:- (a)If the Defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good chance to the claim on its merits the Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign Judgment and the Defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. (b)If the Defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bonafide or reasonable defence although not a positively good defence the Plaintiff is not entitled to sign Judgment and the Defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. (c)If the Defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, that is to say, although the affidavit does not positively and immediately make it clear that he as a defence, yet, shows such a state of facts as leads to the inference that at the trial of the action he may be able to establish a defence to the Plaintiffs claim the Plaintiff is not entitled to Judgment and the Defendant is entitled to leave to defend but in such a case the Court may in its discretion impose conditions as to the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into court or furnishing security. (d)If the Defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinarily the Plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign Judgment and the Defendant is not entitled to leave to defend. (e)If the Defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then although ordinarily the Plaintiff is entitled to leave to sing Judgment, the Court may protect the Plaintiff by only allowing the defence to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into the Court or otherwise secured and give leave to the Defendant on such condition, an thereby show mercy to the Defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence." 8. In the light of above principles, it is to be seen whether invalid defence or triable issue has been disclosed to grant unconditional leave to defend the suit. 9. Defence is denial of execution of Promissory Note. Contention of Petitioner/Defendant is that he has availed loan from Respondent/Plaintiff in the month of January 2005 on three occasions and he has approached the Respondent to settle due amount, but the Plaintiff has demanded huge amount and the Defendant has settled an amount of Rs.30,000/-as full and final settlement even in the month of July 2005. In para(5) of the Supporting Affidavit, the Petitioner has stated that the Plaintiff has not agreed for the settlement but demanded huge amount. Petitioner has not clearly stated how much amount was availed as loan in the month of January 2005 and how much was settled. As far as Suit Promissory Note, it is a total denial of execution of promissory note and Defendant has pleaded forgery. The Petitioner has not produced any document showing the other transaction how much was borrowed and how much was repaid and how much is the due. 10. In the Supporting Affidavit filed along with O.37 R.3 C.P.C Application, the Petitioner has stated that Suit Promissory Note is a created forged document and he is taking necessary legal steps to file Criminal Complaint against Respondent/Plaintiff. So far, the Petitioner does not seem to have taken any steps regarding the same. In the Affidavit filed along with Revision Petition, in Paragraph 5 the Petitioner has alleged that he had taken necessary legal steps by filing a Criminal Complaint before 18yh Metropolitan Magistrate Court. But, the Petitioner has not furnished any C.C. Number. So far, the Petitioner does not seem to have taken any steps regarding the same. In the Affidavit filed along with Revision Petition, in Paragraph 5 the Petitioner has alleged that he had taken necessary legal steps by filing a Criminal Complaint before 18yh Metropolitan Magistrate Court. But, the Petitioner has not furnished any C.C. Number. Per contra, by perusal of Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent, it is seen that for dishonour of cheque in respect of other transaction, Respondent/Plaintiff has filed Criminal Complaint before 18th Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.210 of 2006. Defence is vague and no triable issue has been disclosed. As rightly observed by the Court below, the Petitioner has come forward with vague allegations to evade suit liability. 11. Contending that triable issue is one which is to be proved at the time of Trial and Defendant is not bound to prove his case even at the time of consideration of grant of leave, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision reported in N. Prabakaran Vs Manager ( 2001 (4) C.T.C. 178 ). In the said decision, in summary suit for recovery of money, Defendant raised plea of discharge of total amount and relied on two letters to prove discharge. Under that factual context, observing that at the time of consideration of leave, Defendant is not bound to prove his case, Court has granted unconditional leave. In the case in hand, there is total denial of execution of Promissory Note and no explanation is forthcoming as to why the Plaintiff should create such forged Promissory Note for huge amount of Rs.2,82,000/-. 12. Having regard to vague allegations in the defence, court below has rightly dismissed the Application declining to grant leave to defend. The Impugned Order does not suffer from any serious infirmity calling for interference exercising revisional jurisdiction under Sec.115 C.P.C. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the Impugned Order dated 28.02.2006 of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.24907 of 2005 in O.S.No.6064 of 2005 is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.