Civil Revision No. 1500 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1500 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 07.03.2011 Massa Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Major Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This petition assails the order dated 05.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, whereby the conditional leave to defend was granted to the defendant-petitioner. Detailing the cases where the defendant was required to furnish the security in case leave to defend is allowed, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mechalec Engineering and Manufacturer Vs. Basic Equipment Corporation, reported in AIR 1977 SC 577, issued following guidelines:- “(a) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. (b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence although not a positively good defence the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. Civil Revision No. 1500 of 2011 (O&M) 2 (c) If the defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend that is to say, although the affidavit does not positively and immediately make it clear that he had a defence, yet shows such a state of facts as leads to the inference that at the trial of the action he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff's claim the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment and the defendant is entitled to leave to defend but in such a case the Court may in its discretion impose conditions as to the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security. (d) If the defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to have to sign judgment and the defendant is not entitled to leave to defend. (e) If the defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then although ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment, the Court may protect the plaintiff by only allowing the defence to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into Court or otherwise secured and give leave to the defendant on such condition, and thereby show mercy to the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence.” The case of the petitioner is not covered by guideline (b) of the guidelines of the aforesaid judgment delivered in case Mechalec Engineering and Manufacturer (supra). Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is quite valid. No ground to interfere is made out. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 07th of March, 2011 JUDGE ajp