1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2171 OF 2009 Arun Anant Gogate .. Petitioner Versus Kishore Totaram Lulla .. Respondent Mr.G.H.Keluskar for the petitioner. Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner defendant has taken an exception to the order passed by the trial Court by which conditional leave to defend the suit filed by the respondent has been granted in favour of the petitioner. The conditional leave has been granted subject to condition of the petitioner depositing the alleged admitted claim amount of Rs.03,11,170/- within a period of 15 days from the date of the order. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has not considered the defence of the petitioner as pleaded in application for grant of leave. He submitted that in any event 2 the respondent plaintiff had agreed not to demand the amount unless and until the petitioner is placed in a sound financial position. He submitted that without adverting to the defence of the petitioner, a very harsh order of granting condition leave to defend has been passed by the trial Court. He submitted that there were triable issues involved and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to grant of unconditional leave to defend. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to refer to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the application made by the petitioner for grant of leave to defend the suit. Paragraphs 7 and 8 read thus: 7. In fact all the above transactions were made as per the advice and convenience of the plaintiff so as to suit his accounts. The plaintiff was also engaged in the business of estate, developers and money lender. The plaintiff had promised and also given a letter to the defendant stating that an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- mentioned therein which was shown to the credit of the persons in defendant s books of accounts are not demandable unless and until defendant comes in sound financial position. The defendant at present is in financial turmoil. He hardly earns Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month from his business. This is not sufficient even for the maintenance of his family. 8. The above statements of fact would show that the defendant has a legal and valid defence and is entitled to defend the plaintiff s claim. The above referred letter 3 of the plaintiff will show that the plaintiff has no right to demand whatever amount which may be found due till the financial condition of the defendant becomes sound. The defendant therefore submits that no conditions may be put upon him while giving leave to defend. (Emphasis added) 4. Even after considering the aforesaid contentions raised by the petitioner himself, against the suit claim of Rs.5,80,000/- the learned trial Judge imposed a condition of deposit of Rs.3,11,170/-. It is obvious that a very lenient view has been taken by the learned trial Judge. Leave to defend the suit has not been denied to the petitioner, but the leave has been granted subject to deposit of Rs.3,11,170/-. Considering the defence taken by the petitioner, it is difficult to find fault with the impugned order especially while dealing with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No case for interference is made out. The petition is rejected. However, time to deposit the amount of Rs.3,11,170/- is extended by a period of eight weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)