Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 508 of 1976. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 27 10 1975 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Revision No. 115/75). S.N. Andley	 Urea Dutta and T.C. Sharma	 for the appellant. K.C. Agarwala and M.M.L. Srivastava	 for the respondent. The plaintiff respondent 	alleged to be a regis tered partnership firm filed a suit on 25th April	 1974	 through Smt. Pushpa Mittal	 shown as one of its partners	 for the recovery of Rs. 21	265.28 as principal and Rs. 7655/ 	 as interest at 12% per annum. according to law and Mercantile usage	 on the strength of a cheque drawn by the defendant on 12th May	 1971	 on the State Bank of India	 which	 on presentation	 was dishonoured. The plaintiff alleged that the cheque 1061 was given as price of goods supplied. The defendant appel lant firm admitted the issue of the cheque by its Managing partner	 but	 it denied any privity of contract with the plaintiff firm. The defendant appellant had its own version as to the reasons and purposes for which the cheque was drawn. The suit was instituted under the provisions of Order 37 Civil Procedure Code so that the defendant appellant had to apply for leave under Order 37	 Rule 2	 of the Code to defend. This leave was granted unconditionally by the Trial Court after a perusal of the cases of the two sides. Order 37	 Rule 3	 Civil Procedure Code lays down: "( 1 ) The Court shall	 upon application by the defendant give leave to appear and to defend the suit	 upon affidavits which dis close such facts as would make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration	 or such other facts as the Court may deem sufficient to support the application. (2) Leave to defend may be given uncondi tionally or subject to such terms as to payment into Court	 giving security	 framing and recording issues or otherwise as the Court thinks fit". A learned Judge of the High Court of Delhi had on a revision application under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code interfered with the order of the Additional District Judge of Delhi granting unconditional leave	 after setting out not less than seven questions on which the parties were at issue. The learned Judge had	 after discussing the cases of the two sides and holding that triable issues arose for adjudication	 nevertheless	 concluded that the defences were not bona fide. He	 therefore	 ordered: "For these reasons I would allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the trial Court. Instead I would grant leave to the defendant on their paying into Court the amount of Rs. 21	265.28 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of. suit till payment and costs of the suit (Only court fee amount at this stage and not the lawyer 's fee). The amount will be deposited within two months. There will be no order as to costs of this revision". The only question which arises before us in this appeal by special leave: Could the High Court interfere	 in exercise of its powers under section 115	 Civil Procedure Code	 with the discretion of the Additional District Judge	 in granting unconditional leave to defence to the defendant appellant upon grounds which even a perusal of the order of the High Court shows to be reasonable ? Santosh Kumar vs Bhai Mool Singh(1)	 was a case where a cheque	 the execution of which was admitted by the defend ant	 had been dishonoured. The defendant had set up his defences for refusal to pay. (1)[1958] SCR 1211 1215. 1062 This Court noticed the case of Jacobs vs Booth 's Distill ery Company(1)	 where it was held that	 whenever a defence raises a really triable issue	 leave must be given. Other cases too were noticed there to show that this leave must be given unconditionally where the defence could not be shown to be dishonest in limine. This Court observed there (at p. 1215): "The learned Counsel for the plaintiff respondent relied on Gopala Rao vs Subba Rao (AIR 	 Manohar Lal vs Nanhe Mal (AIR 	 and Shib Karan Das vs Mohammed Sadiq (AIR 1936 Lah. 584). All that we need say	 about them is that if the Court is of opinion that the defence is not bona fide	 then it can impose conditions and is not tied down to refusing leave to. defend. We agree with Varadachariar J. in the Madras case that the Court has this third course open to it in a suitable case. But	 it cannot reach the conclusion that the defence is not bona fide arbitrarily. It is as much bound by judicial rules and judicial procedure in reaching a conclusion of this kind as in any other matter"	 On general principles	 relating to the exercise of jurisdiction of High Courts under section 115	 Civil Proce dure Code	 several cases were cited before us by Mr. Andley: M.L. Sethi vs R.P. Kapur(2); The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar	 Hyderabad & lint. vs Ajit Prasad Tarway	 Manager	 (Purchase & Stores)	 Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.	 Balanagar	 Hyderabad(3); D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi vs Sarup Singh & Ors. (4); Milkhiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Chamanlal Bros.(5) We need not dilate on the well established principles repeatedly laid down by this Court which govern jurisdiction of the High Courts under section 115 C.P.C. We think that these principles were ignored by the learned Judge of the High Court in interfering with the discretionary order after a very detailed discussion of the facts of the case by the learned Judge of the High Court who had differred on a pure question of fact whether the defences could be honest and bona fide. Any decision on such a question	 even before evidence has been led by the two sides	 is generally hazard ous. We do not think that it is fair to pronounce a cate gorical opinion on such a matter before the evidence of the parties is taken so that its effects could be examined. In the case before us	 the defendant had denied	 inter alia	 liability to pay anything to the plaintiff for an alleged supply of goods. It is only in cases where the defence is patently dishonest or so unreasonable that it could not reasonably be expected to succeed that the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court to grant leave unconditionally may be	 (1) (2) ; (3) (4) ; (5) AIR 1965 SC 1698. 1063 questioned. In the judgment of the High Court we are unable to find aground of interference covered by Section 115 C.P.C. In Smt. Kiranmoyee Dassi & Anr. vs Dr. J. Chatterjee(1)	 Das. J.	 after a comprehensive review of authorities on the subject	 stated the principles applicable to cases covered by order 17 C.P.C. in the form of the following propositions (at p. 253): "(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. (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 has a defence	 yet	 shews such a state of facts as leads to the infer ence 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 judg ment 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 practi cally moonshine then ordinarily the Plaintiff is entitled to leave 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 Plain tiff 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 se cured 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 before us certainly does not fall within the class (e) set out above. It is only in that class of case that an imposition of the condition to deposit an amount in Court before proceeding further is justifiable. 	 253. 1064 Consequently	 we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restore that of the Additional District Judge. The parties will bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.

The appellant issued the respondent a cheque which was dishonoured. The respondent alleged that the cheque was the consideration for goods supplied. The appellant admitted issuing the cheque but denied by privity of contract. The respondent filed a suit under order 37 C.P.C.	 and the appellant applied for the required leave to defend	 which was granted by the trial Court unconditionally. On revision under section 115 C.P.C.	 the High Court held that triable issues arose for adjudication. 	 but	 it considered the defence to be dishonest. If allowed the revision petition and gave conditional leave to defend on the ground that the defences were not bona fide. Allowing the appeal	 the Court HELD: It is only in cases where the defence is patently dishonest or so unreasonable that it could not reasonably be expected to succeed that the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court to grant leave unconditionally may be questioned. In other cases	 it is not fair to pronounce a categorical opinion on such a matter before the evidence of the parties is taken so that its effects could be examined. High Court 's interference under sec. 115 C.P.C. with the correct exercise of its discretion by the trial Court was patently erroneous. 11062 Santosh Kumar vs Bhai Mool Singh ; at 1215	 Jacobs vs Booth 's Distillery Co. followed. Kiranmoyee Dassi and another vs Dr. J. Chatterjee 	at 253) distinguished. M.L. Sethi vs R.P. Kapur ; The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Bulana gar	 Hyderabad & A nr. vs A Ajit Prasad Tarway	 Manager (Purchase and Stores). Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar	 Hyderabad (AIR ; D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.	 New Delhi vs Sarup Singh & Ors. [1970] 2. S.C.R. 368; and Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs Chamanlal Bros. (AIR 1965 SC 1998) referred to.