ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 12.02.2021 in IA No.340 of 2020 in OS No.179 of 2020 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2. This application in IA No.340 of 2020 was filed under Order-37 Rule 3 (5) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to defend the suit. The trial Court has allowed the said application by granting leave to the defendant to defend the suit. However, the defendant was directed to furnish security to a tune of suit claim within one month from the date of the order. This part of the order as to furnishing security is under challenge through this civil revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the material available on record. Detailed submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court. 4. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed summary suit for recovery of the suit claim. Notice was served on the defendant, on appearing before the trial Court the defendant has filed an application under Order-37 Rule-3 (5) of CPC, vide IA No.340 of 2020, and it was allowed granting leave to the defendant to defend his case by filing written statement on condition of furnishing security to the tune of suit claim within one month from the date of the order. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ defendant seeks to submit that the Court is entitled to grant leave to the defendant to defend the suit unconditionally or on terms. If the facts of the suit disclose a triable issue and that the defence intended to be put up is not frivolous or vexatious, the trial Court is not justified in putting such conditions. 6. If the facts of the suit disclose a triable issue and that the defence intended to be put up is not frivolous or vexatious, the trial Court is not justified in putting such conditions. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has opposed the said application before the trial Court though the trial Court has failed to arrive at a conclusion that there is substantial defence to raise on behalf of the defendant and there is no such defence unless he is directed to furnish security to the tune of suit claim, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury and relied n the principles laid in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., 2016 CJ (SC) 1160 = AIR 2016 SC 5321 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at para-18.2 that if the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence, although not a positively good defence, the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment, and the defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend. 7. As discussed above, in the present case, though the defendant has raised triable issue, in my considered opinion, he is not entitled for unconditional leave to defend. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, nature of the relationship between the parties and the business as alleged including the whatsapp messages, I deem it fit and proper to direct the defendant to furnish security to the extent of Rs.50 lakhs instead of suit claim of Rs.87,59,050/-. With the above modification, the order impugned is confirmed 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the order dated 12.02.2021 in IA No.340 of 2020 in OS No.179 of 2020 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, with modification that the defendant is directed to furnish security for an amount of Rs.50 lakhs instead to the tune of suit claim, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.