Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.2. The trial court by an order dated 25thJune, 1984, dismissed the said application Ex.9, and hence feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same, the petitioner-defendant herein has moved this court by way of a revision application under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1976.

3. Mr. S. R. Shah, the learned advocate appears for the petitioner-defendant, as against him, though the respondent-plaintiff is duly served, is surprisingly absent.

4. It was submitted by Mr. Shah, the learned advocate for the petitioner-defendant that the impugned order passed by the trial -court rejecting application for unconditional leave to defend, was on the face of it, illegal, arbitrary and unjust and hence the same deserved to be quashed and set aside. He contended that the defendant has prima facie raised a 'triable issue' of forgery. According to Mr. Shah, the promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant and which was the very basis on which the suit amount was claimed was itself counter alleged by the defendant to have been forged and fabricated document. He submitted that since the defendant has raised serious disputed question of fact and thereby a 'triable issue', the trial court ought to have granted an unconditional leave to defend the case. In support of his submissions, Mr. Shah has invited my attention to a leading decision on the point reported in AIR 1977 SC 577, in the case of M/s. Mechalec Engineers & Manu facturers v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, wherein it has been observed that - "The following principles are to be followed while considering the question of granting leave to defend (at page 580):