JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order 8.10.2015 passed by the Trial Court, whereby while granting leave to defend to the petitioner in a summary suit under Order 37, Rule 3 (5) C.P.C., a condition has been imposed for production of guarantee that If the petitioner's defence fails, the amount of decree shall be paid within a period of one month. 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit under Order 37 C.P.C. for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- based on an agreement dated 30.12.2011. After the service of summons for judgment on the petitioner, the petitioner filed leave to defend within a period of 10 days and raised several issues including questioning the execution of the document and the fact that the amount in fact was not lent to the petitioner. 3. No reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff. After the service of summons for judgment on the petitioner, the petitioner filed leave to defend within a period of 10 days and raised several issues including questioning the execution of the document and the fact that the amount in fact was not lent to the petitioner. 3. No reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, came to the following conclusion:- ^^9- izfroknh us viuh izfrj{kk esa dqN egRoiw.kZ fof/kd fcUnq mBk;s gS gekjh jk; esa izkd`frd U;k; dk fl)kUr gS fd nksuksa i{kksa dks lquk tkdj gh dksbZ fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkos ijUrq ;g okn vkns'k 37 laf{kIr izfdz;k ls lacaf/kr gSA izfroknh us fu;ekuqlkj izdj.k esa mifLFkfr nh gS vkSj 10 fnol ds Hkhrj gh viuh mifLFkfr nsdj izfrj{kk dh btktr ekaxh gSA ftlesa muds }kjk bdjkjukek dwVjfpr crk;k gS m/kkj jkf'k nsus ds laca/k esa dksbZ LFkku vafdr ugha gS vkSj bdjkjukesa esa mifLFkfr esa rkjh[k Mkyus ds LFkku dh lqfuf'prrk ugha cukrs gq, oknh dk okn >wBs vkSj xyr rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gksuk crkrs gq, izfrj{kk dh btktr ekaxh gSA oknh us vius okn ds laca/k esa egRoiw.kZ izekf.kr nLrkost izLrqr fd;s gSa rFkk 'kiFki= Hkh izLrqr fd;k gSA^^ Thereafter the Court went on to hold that a guarantee needs to be taken from the petitioner and while indicating the same, passed the following order:- ^^10- izLrqr izdj.k ij miyC/k rF;ksa dh tkudkjh ds fy, gekjh jk; esa bl izdkj ds laf{kIr oknksa esa ftldk fopkj.k 'kh?kz fd;k tkuk gS izfrHkwfr bl vk'k; dh yh tkuk mfpr gS fd ;fn izfroknh okn esa viuh izfrj{kk dks izekf.kr djus esa fu"Qy jgrs gSa rks fcuk fdlh vlqfo/kk ds oknh }kjk nkokd`r jkf'k vnk djsaxs ;k U;k;ky; esa tek djok;saxs blls nksuksa i{kksa dks dksbZ fof/kd {kfr gksuk izdV ugha gksrk gSA 11- vkns'k ,rn~}kjk izfroknh dk bl okn esa izfrj{kk izLrqr djus gsrq vkosnu bl 'krZ ij Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS fd os oknh }kjk nkokd`r jkf'k ikap yk[k :i;s ds laca/k esa izfrHkwfr izLrqr djs ftlls bl rF; dk Li"V vadu gks fd okn esa izfroknh dh izfrj{kk vlQy gks tkus ij nkokd`r jkf'k okn esa fu.kZ; dh frfFk ,d ekg ds Hkhrj vnk djsxk rks izfroknh dks bl okn esa izfrj{kk djus dh btktr nh tkrh gSA izfrHkwfr izLrqr djuk tokcnkos ls iwoZorhZ 'krZ gksxhA^^ 4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that once the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that the petitioner has raised important legal aspects in the leave to defend, it was incumbent on the Trial Court to grant unconditional leave to defend and the imposition of condition by the Trial Court is contrary to the settled position of law. 5. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh, AIR 1958 SC 321 and M/s. Mechalec Engineers & Manufacturers v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, AIR 1977 SC 577 . 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Trial Court acted within its jurisdiction in imposing the condition and looking to the nature of condition, the petitioner cannot possibly have any objection, inasmuch, as the Court has not directed submitting of bank guarantee and petitioner's personal guarantee has been sought and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The provisions of Order 37, Rule 3 (5) C.P.C. reads as under:- "3(5) The defendant may, at any lime 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 was a substantial defence to raise or that the defence intended to be put 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. 8. 8. A bare look at the provision reveals that the same requires that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the facts disclosed by the defendant are sufficient to entitle him to defend, leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the Court or Judge to be just. 9. Once the Court comes to the conclusion, as in the present case, that the petitioner has raised important legal points, the grant of unconditional leave was a natural consequence, however, if the Court thought it appropriate to impose conditions, it should have recorded reasons for imposing such condition, however, a look at para-10 quoted hereinbefore reveals that the same is merely ipse dixit and does not disclose any reason in support of Court imposing the condition. 10. The law on the aspect is very clear as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Mechalec Engineers (supra) that if the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits, the plaintiff is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. As already noticed, the Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has raised important legal points and was entitled for leave to defend. 11. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed, the order passed by the Trial Court to the extent of imposing condition while granting leave to defend cannot be sustained and the same is set aside to the said extent.