ORDER : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2024 in I.A.No.38 of 2024 in O.S.No.5999 of 2023 on the file of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prudhvi Raj, learned counsel representing Sri R.Mangulal, learned counsel for respondents. 3. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioner herein is a businessman engaged in rice trading. The respondents herein placed an order for supply of rice and the same was supplied to respondents through M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Traders and M/s. Anjaneya Rice Industries. However, respondents did not make payment and on regular follow up, the respondents issued two cheques in discharge of liability, however, the same were returned on presentation with remarks ‘insufficient funds’. On repeated requests and persuasion, the respondents issued two more cheques, however, those two cheques were also returned on presentation for the reason ‘insufficient funds’. 4. Subsequently, respondents issued legal notice dated 14.11.2022 to the petitioner herein contending that two cheques, which were dishonoured, were issued as advance for pending delivery of rice. Petitioner got issued legal notice dated 09.08.2023 to the respondents for payment of outstanding amounts. When there was no response from the respondents, petitioner filed private complaint against the respondents before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad and the same was referred to P.S. Afzalgunj on 06.10.2023 and the P.S. Afzalgund registered the same as crime No.503 of 2023 against the respondents on 14.11.2023 under Sections 405, 415 and 420 of IPC. 5. The petitioner filed summary suit under Order XXXVIII Rule 2 of CPC vide O.S.No.5999 of 2023 before the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of Rs.19,65,000/-; that summons were served on the respondents and on appearance, summons for judgment were issued. Thereafter, respondents filed application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) of CPC seeking leave to defend the suit. In the said application, respondents stated that petitioner herein filed the suit in order to gain illegally and has suppressed the material facts. It is further stated that respondents have not issued cheques towards any liability as alleged by the petitioner and the same were given as security on false promise made by the petitioner. In the said application, respondents stated that petitioner herein filed the suit in order to gain illegally and has suppressed the material facts. It is further stated that respondents have not issued cheques towards any liability as alleged by the petitioner and the same were given as security on false promise made by the petitioner. It is also stated that there is no business relationship with the petitioner and that suit was filed basing on fake and fabricated documents and same would not withstand scrutiny of law. 6. Petitioner filed counter resisting the application and stated that respondents did not deny the signatures on the cheques issued by them and it was specifically denied the allegation of respondents that cheques were issued as security on false promise made by the petitioner. It is also stated that in the legal notice dated 14.11.2022 issued by the respondents, they never mentioned that there was no business transaction and relationship with the petitioner, however, for the first time in the application filed by the respondents seeking to leave to defend the said plea and finally, prayed to dismiss the application. 7. The Trial Court, taking into consideration, the contentions of both the parties as well as material placed on record, has allowed the application filed by the respondents seeking leave of the Court to defend the suit unconditionally by the impugned order mainly on the ground that respondents are able to point out triable issues, which requires adjudication. The trial Court further observed that in view of categorical denial of the respondents that the invoices are not genuine and there were no signatures on the invoices, the issue requires adjudication and has come to conclusion that respondents were able to show that they have got valid defence to defend the suit and, therefore, granted leave to the respondents to defend the suit without imposing any condition. The trial Court referred to judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner herein, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that even a case where triable issue was raised, the Court still can impose conditions, however, the trial Court observed that the same are not applicable to the present case. 8. The trial Court referred to judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner herein, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that even a case where triable issue was raised, the Court still can impose conditions, however, the trial Court observed that the same are not applicable to the present case. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner had contended that petitioner supplied rice basing on the orders placed by the respondents through M/s.Venkateshwara Traders and M/s.Anjaneya Rice Industries and invoices were also released to that effect to a tune of Rs.10,77,500/- and cheques given by the respondents were returned by the bankers. If there was no business transaction as contended by the respondents, there is no necessity for the respondents to issue cheques that too signed cheques and subsequent plea raised by the respondents that same were issued as security for the supply of rice on false promises made by the petitioner is an afterthought. It is further contended that invoices, cheques, cheque returned memos were placed on record, however, the trial Court has granted permission to the respondents to defend the suit without imposing any condition. It is further contended that respondents have closed the shop and criminal case was also filed against the respondents by the petitioner. All these aspects were not considered by the trial Court and therefore, prayed to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order and further direction to the respondents to deposit 50% of the suit amount. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention: i) IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. V. Hubton Ltd., (2017) 1 SCC 568 ii) B.L.Kashyap and Sons Ltd. V. M/s. JMS Steels and Power Corporation & another , SLP (C) No.19413 of 2018 iii) Milkhiram (India) Pvt.Ltd., and others v. Chamanlal Brothers, AIR 1965 SC 1698 iv) Neha International Ltd. V. DBS Bank Ltd., 2023 (6) ALT 210 v) Chander Mohan v. Tejinder Singh, Neutral Citation No.2023/DHC/001110 vi) Sudin Dilip Talaulikar v. Polycap Wires Pvt.Ltd. and others, (2019) 7 SCC 577 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents had contended that trial Court has rightly granted leave to the respondents to defend the suit unconditionally in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of valid defence and triable issues raised by the respondents. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents had contended that trial Court has rightly granted leave to the respondents to defend the suit unconditionally in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of valid defence and triable issues raised by the respondents. It is contended that there is no business transaction between the respondents and the petitioner and even invoices raised by the petitioner are not signed by the respondents. It is finally contended that revision is devoid of any merit and the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and, therefore, revision is liable to be dismissed. 11. Perusal of the impugned order would disclose that trial Court, on consideration of the contentions put-forth by the respondent in the application seeking leave of the Court to defend the suit and contentions raised by the petitioner by way of counter, had allowed the application granting permission to the petitioner to defend the suit unconditionally with an observation that respondent did not admit any part of the amount claimed by the petitioner and, therefore, invoking second proviso to Rule 3(5) of Order XXXVII of CPC does not arise. The trial Court at paragraph-15 has made the following observation: “15. In my considered opinion, the contentions which are raised by the defendants constitute valid defence and they are triable issues for the following reason. The question whether the invoices produced by the plaintiff on the basis of the present suit is filed are genuine or fabricated, or the question whether the cheques issued by the defendants are not issue for any legally enforceable debt are matters for consideration which will have to be proved by the plaintiff by adducing evidence – both oral and documentary. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants have no defence or that there are no triable issues. In my view, for the purpose of maintaining a petition seeking leave to defend, it is sufficient if the defendant is able to show that he is having valid defence. In this case, since the defendants are able to show that they are having valid defence, they must be permitted to defend the suit.” 12. In my view, for the purpose of maintaining a petition seeking leave to defend, it is sufficient if the defendant is able to show that he is having valid defence. In this case, since the defendants are able to show that they are having valid defence, they must be permitted to defend the suit.” 12. Learned counsel for petitioner specifically referred to legal notice dated 14.11.2022 issued by the respondent no.2, wherein it is admitted that respondent accepted the request of the petitioner herein and placed order on different times and accordingly, the same was supplied and respondent paid the due amounts. In the notice dated 14.11.2022, it is further mentioned that on insistence of petitioner, respondent had issued two advance cheques bearing Nos.010250 dated 01.05.2022 and 010251 dated 01.07.2022. 13. It is pertinent to refer to the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC seeking leave of the Court to defend the suit, wherein it is specifically contended that the cheques referred to in the legal notice are not issued in discharge of any debt and are not supported with any consideration and it was also contended that blank cheques were issued as security basing on false promise made by the petitioner, but in fact, the respondent did not have any business relations nor done any transactions with the petitioner. Thus, the respondent had taken two contradictory stands in the notice dated 14.11.2022 and the application filed under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC. 14. It is appropriate to refer to latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. v. JMS Steels & Power Corpn., (2022) 3 SCC 294 wherein certain principles have been laid down while adjudicating the application filed under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC seeking leave of the Court to defend the suit. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “ 33. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “ 33. It is at once clear that even though in IDBI Trusteeship [IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., (2017) 1 SCC 568 : (2017) 1 SCC (Civ) 386] , this Court has observed that the principles stated in para 8 of Mechelec Engineers case [Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn., (1976) 4 SCC 687 ] shall stand superseded in the wake of amendment of Rule 3 of Order 37 but, on the core theme, the principles remain the same that grant of leave to defend (with or without conditions) is the ordinary rule; and denial of leave to defend is an exception. Putting it in other words, generally, the prayer for leave to defend is to be denied in such cases where the defendant has practically no defence and is unable to give out even a semblance of triable issues before the court. 33.1. As noticed, if the defendant satisfies the Court that he has substantial defence i.e. a defence which is likely to succeed, he is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. In the second eventuality, where the defendant raises triable issues indicating a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence, albeit not a positively good defence, he would be ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend. In the third eventuality, where the defendant raises triable issues, but it remains doubtful if the defendant is raising the same in good faith or about genuineness of the issues, the trial court is expected to balance the requirements of expeditious disposal of commercial causes on one hand and of not shutting out triable issues by unduly severe orders on the other. Therefore, the trial court may impose conditions both as to time or mode of trial as well as payment into the court or furnishing security. In the fourth eventuality, where the proposed defence appears to be plausible but improbable, heightened conditions may be imposed as to the time or mode of trial as also of payment into the court or furnishing security or both, which may extend to the entire principal sum together with just and requisite interest. 33.2. In the fourth eventuality, where the proposed defence appears to be plausible but improbable, heightened conditions may be imposed as to the time or mode of trial as also of payment into the court or furnishing security or both, which may extend to the entire principal sum together with just and requisite interest. 33.2. Thus, it could be seen that in the case of substantial defence, the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave; and even in the case of a triable issue on a fair and reasonable defence, the defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend. In case of doubts about the intent of the defendant or genuineness of the triable issues as also the probability of defence, the leave could yet be granted but while imposing conditions as to the time or mode of trial or payment or furnishing security. Thus, even in such cases of doubts or reservations, denial of leave to defend is not the rule; but appropriate conditions may be imposed while granting the leave. It is only in the case where the defendant is found to be having no substantial defence and/or raising no genuine triable issues coupled with the court's view that the defence is frivolous or vexatious that the leave to defend is to be refused and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith. Of course, in the case where any part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant, leave to defend is not to be granted unless the amount so admitted is deposited by the defendant in the court. 33.3. Therefore, while dealing with an application seeking leave to defend, it would not be a correct approach to proceed as if denying the leave is the rule or that the leave to defend is to be granted only in exceptional cases or only in cases where the defence would appear to be a meritorious one. Even in the case of raising of triable issues, with the defendant indicating his having a fair or reasonable defence, he is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend unless there be any strong reason to deny the leave. Even in the case of raising of triable issues, with the defendant indicating his having a fair or reasonable defence, he is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend unless there be any strong reason to deny the leave. It gets perforce reiterated that even if there remains a reasonable doubt about the probability of defence, sterner or higher conditions as stated above could be imposed while granting leave but, denying the leave would be ordinarily countenanced only in such cases where the defendant fails to show any genuine triable issue and the court finds the defence to be frivolous or vexatious. 15. The Hon’ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Chandar Bhalla v. Rajeev Bhatnagar, 2025 SCC Online Del 470, while following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.L.Khashyap (supra), held that it is apparent from the aforesaid ratio that if the defendant raises defence which appear to be plausible but improbable, strict conditions as to the time or mode of trial as also payment into the Court or furnishing securities or both extending to the entire principal sum with just and requisite interest may be directed by the Court. 16. At this stage, it is apt to refer to the legal notice dated 14.11.2022, wherein the respondents have taken a stand that there were business relationships between the petitioner and the respondents and all the amounts payable for the supplies made by the petitioner have been paid. However, in the application filed under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC seeking leave of the Court to defend the suit, a specific stand has been taken that there was no business relationship between the petitioner and the respondents and that cheques were issued only as security for the supplies to be made by the petitioner, which is contrary to the stand taken in the notice dated 14.11.2022. 17. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that supplies were made to the respondent on orders and cheques were issued for the supplies made, however, the said cheques were dishonoured on presentation. On repeated requests and persuasion, the respondent issued two more cheques and those cheques were also dishonoured on its presentation. It is pertinent to refer to the contention of the petitioner that criminal case has also been filed vide Crime No.503 of 2023 against the respondents under Sections 405, 415 and 420 of IPC. 18. On repeated requests and persuasion, the respondent issued two more cheques and those cheques were also dishonoured on its presentation. It is pertinent to refer to the contention of the petitioner that criminal case has also been filed vide Crime No.503 of 2023 against the respondents under Sections 405, 415 and 420 of IPC. 18. In view of the contradictory stand taken in the notice and the written statement, the contention of the respondent that there was no relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and that no supplies were made and further, cheques have been issued as security for the supply to be made, are unbelievable. 19. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the principle formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.L.Khashyap (supra) at paragraph 33.2, which reads as under: “In case of doubts about the intent of the defendant or genuineness of the triable issues as also the probability of defence, the leave could yet be granted but while imposing conditions as to the time or mode of trial or payment or furnishing security. Thus, even in such cases of doubts or reservations, denial of leave to defend is not the rule; but appropriate conditions may be imposed while granting the leave.” 20. The trial Court while granting unconditional leave has held that the respondent could able to raise valid defence and triable issues and further, observed that respondent did not admit any part of the amount claimed by the petitioner. However, the trial Court had failed to consider the contradictory stand taken by the respondent in the notice and the written statement and thus, come to erroneous conclusion that respondent could able to raise valid defence and triable issues. 21. In the light of above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, in considered view of this Court, the trial Court has rightly granted leave to the respondents to defend the suit, however, erred in not imposing any condition. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 is liable to be modified. 22. 21. In the light of above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, in considered view of this Court, the trial Court has rightly granted leave to the respondents to defend the suit, however, erred in not imposing any condition. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 is liable to be modified. 22. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed and order dated 11.03.2024 in I.A.No.38 of 2024 in O.S.No.5999 of 2023 on the file of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is modified and the respondents are granted leave to defend the suit subject to deposit of 1/4th of the suit amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.