ORDER : 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.P.No.5665 of 2023, M.P 5629 of 2023 and M.P.5737 of 2023, as in all these cases, identical issues are involved. For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in M.P.No.5629 of 2023, have been taken into consideration. 2. These miscellaneous petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.09.2023 passed in Summary Suit no.193B/2022 by Third, Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore; whereby, the application filed by petitioners/defendants under Order 37 Rule 3(5) read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (herein after referred to as “CPC’) has been partly allowed and while allowing the leave to defend to petitioners/defendants, it has also ordered to deposit the entire claim of the respondent/plaintiff by way of furnishing solvent surety. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the finding recorded by the learned judge of the civil Court wherein it is held that the defendants have raised certain grounds which can only be decided after the evidence is led by the parties and thus, it is submitted that the petitioners have already made a ground for their entitlement to leave to defend, hence the conditions to furnish the guarantee deserves to be set aside. 4. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an order passed by this Court in the case of Kamal Maithil vs. Ajay Sharma reported as 2023(3) MPLJ 383 wherein this Court has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case IDBI Trusteeship services Limited Vs. Hubtown Limited reported as 2016 MPLJ Online (SC) 132= (2017) 1 SCC 568 , and has held that where the defendant is able to demonstrate that he/she has a reasonable defence which requires leading of the evidence, in that case the condition of furnishing any security does not arise. 5. Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs on the other hand has opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the learned judge of the Civil Court has rightly imposed the condition as it is the discretion of the Court while allowing the leave to defend to petitioners/defendants and to file the written statement. 6. Heard. 6. Heard. On due consideration, and on perusal of the documents filed on record, this Court finds that so far as findings of the civil Court is concerned, the same reads as under :- ^^blh izdkj tgka ,d vksj ifjlhek vf/kfu;e ds fcUnq ij lk{; izLrqr gksuk vko’;d gS ogha nwljh vksj oknh }kjk U;k;ky; ds le{k LoPN gkFkksa ls mifLFkr u gksdj xyr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k izLrqr fd, tkus ds fcUnq ij Hkh izdj.k ds bl izdze ij dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA mijksDr fcUnqvksa dk izHkkoh fujkdj.k mHk;i{k dh lk{; ds mijkar gh laHko gS ,oa mDr mn~ns’; ckor ;g vko’;d gS fd izfroknh dks lk{; izLrqrh dk volj fn;k tkosA pwafd mDr jkf’k oknh ds }kjk C;kt ij fn;k tkuk crk;k tk jgk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa lkgwdkjh vf/kfu;e ds v/khu yk;lsal gksus laca/kh fof/kd fcUnq ij Hkh fopkj fd;k tkuk gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izfroknh dks izfrj{kk dk volj fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gS] fdUrq pwafd izfroknh dks izfrj{kk dk volj fn;s tkus dh vuqefr fcuk fdlh 'krZ ds fn;s tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA U;k;n`"Vkar ch-,y- d’;i fo:) ts-,e-,l- LVhYl ,aM ikoj dkikZsjs’ku 2022 ,lh-lh-lh- vkWuykbZu ,l-lh- 59 esa ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izfrj{kk laca/kh fuosnu vioknh fLFkfr esa gh [kkfjt fd;k tkuk pkfg, rFkk mfpr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izfrj{kk dk volj iznku fd;k tkuk pkfg,A vr% mHk;i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr rdZ ,oa fof/kd fl)karks rFkk gLrxr izdj.k ds fof’k"V rF; ,oa ifjafLFkfr ds vkyksd esa izfroknh ls olwyh ;ksX; jkf’k 6]75]000@& :i;s ds laca/k esa l{ke tekur izLrqr fd;s tkus dh 'krZ ij izfroknh dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj izfrj{kk dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA izdj.k mijksDrkuqlkj tekur izLrqr fd;s tkus@tokcnkok izLrqfr gsrq fnukad 07@11@2003 dks is’k gksA^^ 7. On perusal of the aforesaid finding, it clearly reveals that the Court has already formed an opinion that the defendants have made out a triable case, and in such circumstances, the civil Court was not justified in imposing such condition of furnishing the solvent surety as aforesaid. This Court in the case of Kamla Maithil (supra) has held as under:- “9. So far as the requirement of conditions, to be imposed on the defendant to defend his case is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited (supra) has held as under:- “15. This Court in the case of Kamla Maithil (supra) has held as under:- “9. So far as the requirement of conditions, to be imposed on the defendant to defend his case is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited (supra) has held as under:- “15. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 15.1. In Defiance Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. v. Jay Arts, (2006) 8 SCC 25 , this Court, after setting out the amended Order 37 and after referring to Mechelec case, laid down the following principles : (Jay Arts case, SCC p.31, para 13) “13. While giving leave to defend the suit the court shall observe the following principles: (a) If the court is of the opinion that the case raises a triable issue then leave to defend should ordinarily be granted unconditionally. See Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd. v. Chamanlal Bros. [ AIR 1965 SC 1698 : 68 Bom LR 36] The question whether the defence raises a triable issue or not has to be ascertained by the court from the pleadings before it and the affidavits of parties. (b) If 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 it may refuse leave to defend altogether. Kiranmoyee Dassi v. Dr. J. Chatterjee [AIR 1949 Cal 479 : 49 CWN 246] (noted and approved in Mechelec case). (c) In cases where the court entertains a genuine doubt on the question as to whether the defence is genuine or sham or whether it raises a triable issue or not, the court may impose conditions in granting leave to defend. 15.2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 16. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 17. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 17.1 If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a substantial defence, that is, a defence that is likely to succeed, the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit; 17.2 If the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence, although not apositively good defence, the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment, and the defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 17.6. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.” (emphasis supplied)” 8. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.” (emphasis supplied)” 8. In view of the aforesaid decision, if the facts of the case and the impugned order as reproduced herein above are considered, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned judge of the trial Court has erred in directing the petitioners/defendants to furnish the solvent surety of the entire claim, of the respondent/plaintiff, i.e., of Rs.6,75,000/-, which also comes at price, this is despite the fact that a triable case has been found by the trial court. 9. In view of the same, the miscellaneous petitions stand allowed, and the impugned order so far as it relates to furnishing of the solvent surety, is hereby set aside. The learned judge of the trial court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law. 10. Let a copy of this order be placed in the files of other connected M.P.5665 of 2023 and M.P.5737 of 2023.