ORDER : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) This civil writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that in light of the facts stated and grounds raised this petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this court may be pleased to: Quash and/or Modify the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure-4) by removing the condition; Any other order which this Court may deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience may also be passed in favour of the humble Petitioner." 2. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the genesis of the present dispute is traceable to the year 2016, when the plaintiff/respondent advanced a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as an additional amount, apart from the amount, as advanced earlier to the defendant/petitioner by the plaintiff/respondent, in the same year; while taking such additional sum as loan, the defendant/petitioner assured the plaintiff/respondent to return the amount alongwith agreed interest till December 2016. In course of the same, the defendant/petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, but the same, upon being presented before the concerned Bank, came to be dishonoured on 05.05.2017. 2.1 Hence, subsequent to serving a legal notice in that regard upon the defendant/petitioner, a suit was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/petitioner, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur ('trial court') under Order 37, Rule 2 CPC for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,54,000/-. 3. During pendency of the civil suit, the defendant/petitioner filed an application under Order 37, Rule 3 Sub-Rule (5) read with section 151 CPC, reply whereto was filed by the plaintiff/respondent, denying the contents of the application. 3.1 After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2022, granted the defendant/petitioner a conditional leave to defend himself, subject to deposition of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as Fixed Deposit, by the defendant/petitioner, in his own name, in a Nationalized Bank; original documents in regard to such deposit were also directed to be produced before the learned trial court before the next date i.e. 08.12.2022; however, release of the said amount was directed to remain subject to final outcome of the civil suit in question. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner submits that the plaintiff/respondent is an Advocate practicing in this Hon'ble Court, and that, in the year 2015-16, he also remained an Office Bearer (Treasurer) in the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association. Learned counsel further submits that earlier, the plaintiff/respondent represented the defendant/petitioner in the cases before the concerned courts. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner further submits that while the plaintiff/respondent remained as Treasurer in the aforementioned Advocates' Association, under the garb of making some payments to the defendant/petitioner, in connection with supply of certain electric equipment(s) for the usage by the aforementioned Advocates' Association, the plaintiff/respondent asked the defendant/petitioner to give some blank papers and revenue stamps bearing signatures and thumb impressions of the defendant/petitioner thereon, which were handed over to the plaintiff/respondent by the defendant/petitioner; thereafter, the necessary payments were however, prolonged by the plaintiff/respondent, on one pretext or the other. 5.1 As per learned counsel, likewise, the plaintiff/respondent also obtained from the defendant/petitioner another blank paper and promissory note, duly signed by the defendant/petitioner; in this series, the plaintiff/respondent also obtained a blank cheque No.103266 from the defendant/petitioner, on the pretext that the name of Bank branch, account number and IFSC Code would be required for making the necessary payment to the defendant/petitioner, in connection with supply of the electric equipment(s) to the aforementioned Advocates' Association. Such papers/documents, cheque etc., as required by the plaintiff/respondent, were handed over to him by the defendant/petitioner in good faith, which later on were misused by the plaintiff/respondent, so as to harass and humiliate the defendant/petitioner. 5.2 Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner further submits that on the basis of false averments, the defendant/petitioner was also made to face a false case under the Negotiable Instruments Act; an FIR was also registered against the defendant/petitioner, at the instance of the plaintiff/respondent, wherein a negative final report by submitted by the concerned police authorities; the said FIR, as per learned counsel, was lodged as a counter-blast to an FIR lodged earlier by the defendant/petitioner against the plaintiff-respondent, which also culminated into filing of the negative final report. 5.3 Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner also submits that since the plaintiff/respondent himself admits that he advanced money, as loan, to the defendant/petitioner, while charging Rs.4/- (per hundred rupees) as monthly interest, therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff/respondent is engaged in the activities of money laundering, without any requisite license or authority. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner further submits that during the ongoing dispute between the parties, the defendant/petitioner though lodged an FIR against the plaintiff/respondent for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC, but during the course of investigation, the plaintiff/respondent, owing to his position as an Advocate, connived with the concerned police authorities, as a consequence whereof, a negative final report was submitted in the said FIR. 7. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner thus submits that the aforesaid backdrop makes it crystal clear that prima facie, the defendant/petitioner has sufficient grounds for grant of absolute opportunity or leave to defend himself in the suit in question before the learned trial court; however, the learned trial court, vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2022, has only granted to the defendant/petitioner, the conditional leave to defend himself, as above, in the pending civil suit instituted by the plaintiff/respondent. 8. Thus, as per learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the learned trial court without taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without proper appreciation of the evidences placed on record before it, and thus, the impugned order deserves appropriate modification, in the interest of justice. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the defendant/petitioner, submits that after conclusion of the case filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on merits, the defendant/petitioner was found guilty under the said provision of law, and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and deposition of compensation, by the competent court. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent further submits that once the promissory note etc., in question, were duly filled, in the handwriting of the defendant/petitioner himself, then he deserves no leave or opportunity to put forth his defence, in that regard. 11. As regards handing over of the blank cheque etc. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent further submits that once the promissory note etc., in question, were duly filled, in the handwriting of the defendant/petitioner himself, then he deserves no leave or opportunity to put forth his defence, in that regard. 11. As regards handing over of the blank cheque etc. to the plaintiff/respondent by the defendant/petitioner, on the pretext as claimed by the defendant/petitioner, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submits that the defence, as claimed by the defendant/petitioner on that pretext, is not warranted, as no reasonable prudent person will handover such blank documents, duly signed, to any person; as regards the blank cheque, learned counsel submits that even the same is not believable as no reasonable person would hand over such cheque, without writing thereon "cancelled cheque" to any person, on any count whatsoever. Furthermore, as per learned counsel, it is revealed from the record that the cheque in question was not dishonoured on count of false or mismatch signatures, but such dishonour of the cheque had happened on count of insufficiency of fund in the bank account of the defendant/petitioner. 12. Therefore, as per learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, the averments made by the defendant/petitioner before the learned trial court as well as in the present petition, are nothing but a fabricated and concocted story, so as to escape the recovery of the sum of money, advanced to him by the plaintiff/respondent, which is also the subject matter of the main civil suit pending before the learned trial court. 13. As regards the submission made on behalf of the defendant/ petitioner, pertaining to connivance between the plaintiff/respondent and the concerned police authorities, investigating the case lodged by the defendant/petitioner against the plaintiff/respondent, which after due investigation, led to filing of the negative final report, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submits that the plaintiff/respondent has also lodged an FIR against the defendant/petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 422 IPC, which also culminated into filing of the negative final report by the concerned police authorities. Learned counsel thus submits that the allegation of the petitioner, as levelled in his averments, regarding collusion between the plaintiff/respondent and the police authorities for the purpose of filing of the negative final report in the FIR lodged by the defendant/petitioner, again is nothing, but a concocted and fabricated version on the part of the defendant/petitioner, to escape his legal obligation to repay the amount to the plaintiff/respondent. 14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent however, submits that despite the aforesaid sequence of events, since the learned trial court, vide the impugned order, has granted conditional leave of defence to the defendant/petitioner, therefore, the said impugned order ought not to be interfered with by this Court, in the interest of justice and fair trial, more particularly, in light of the fact that the learned trial court, with a view to meet the ends of justice, at the stage of an application seeking leave for defence, passed a well reasoned speaking order. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 16. This Court observes that the learned trial court has recorded a finding that the defendant/petitioner himself admitted in his application, that the promissory note in question bears his signatures; the learned trial court has also recorded that the dishonour of the cheque in question was not made on count of mismatched or false signatures, but the same was made on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the bank account of the defendant/petitioner, and thus, the concerned Bank has also verified the signatures of the defendant/petitioner on the cheque in question. Thus, in the firm opinion of this Court, such findings arrived at by the learned court below do not suffer from any error of law. Thus, in the firm opinion of this Court, such findings arrived at by the learned court below do not suffer from any error of law. 16.1 This Court also observes that with regard to the issue that the defendant/petitioner himself had handed over, certain blank papers, duly signed by him, to the plaintiff/respondent, and that, the defendant/petitioner, upon being asked by the plaintiff/respondent, had supplied certain electric equipment for the usage by the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association, the learned trial court recorded a finding that the bills produced by the defendant/petitioner do not bear the signatures of the plaintiff/respondent; one bill was for an amount of Rs.4340/-, while the other was for a sum of Rs.906/- only; the learned trial court thereafter recorded a finding that owing to bills of such amount, it is unbelievable that in connection with the same, a reasonable and prudent person would handover, to any person, a duly signed promissory note and a cheque, as claimed. Such finding of the learned trial court, in the firm opinion of this Court, also does not suffer from any error of law. 16.2 This Court also observes that the learned trial court lastly recorded a finding that though the defendant/petitioner does not admit his signatures on the documents, cheques, etc., in question, whereas as per the plaintiff/respondent, such signatures were made by the petitioner himself; the said factum, owing to the overall factual matrix of the case, can only be ascertained after leading and appreciation of the relevant evidence; the learned trial court thus granted the conditional leave of defence to the defendant/petitioner vide the impugned order, upon the condition of deposition of the amount and the stipulation regarding the period for such deposition, as mentioned in the impugned order. The said findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned court below, are perfectly in consonance with the stage, at which the civil suit in question is proceeding before it. 17. Thus, in view of the above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below, so as to warrant any interference therein. The amount, as directed to be deposited by the learned trial court vide the impugned order, shall be deposited by the defendant/petitioner within a period of thirty days from today. 18. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.