CM(M) 630/2009 Kishore Kapoor v. Surinder Kamar Bansal Page 1 Of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: March 04, 2010 Date of Order: April 08, 2010 + CM(M) 630/2009 % 08.04.2010 Kishore Kapoor ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Chawla, Advocate Versus Surinder Kamar Bansal ...Respondent Through: Ms. Deepti, Advocate JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 19th May, 2009 passed by learned ADJ whereby an application of the petitioner for leave to defend was conditionally allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee of 50% of the amount of cheques. 2. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4, 44,000/- based on dishonoured cheques issued by the petitioner. In application for leave to defend, the petitioner took plea that he had settled the matter with the respondent/plaintiff and a settlement deed was executed. The cheques in question were to be returned by the respondent but the same were not returned. A copy of settlement deed was annexed with the leave to defend application. In response to leave to defend application, the plaintiff /respondent’s stand was that the settlement deed was a forged document and no such settlement was arrived at. Under these circumstances, the trial court allowed the application for leave to defend conditionally observing that a triable issue as to whether the settlement deed was forged or not, did arise. CM(M) 630/2009 Kishore Kapoor v. Surinder Kamar Bansal Page 2 Of 2 3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that since it has been held that a triable issue arises, the trial court should have granted unconditional leave to defend. I consider that this contention of the petitioner is baseless. The trial court had considered the nature of defence raised and the reply filed by the respondent. The conditional leave to defend is granted in those cases where some triable issue is raised but the credibility of defence is not certain. It is not that conditional leave to defend is granted when no triable issue is raised. I find no infirmity in the order of the trial court. The petition is hereby dismissed. April 08, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd