A.S. Qureshi, J.
1. In this revision application, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 13th September 1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge (V.D.), Dakor, in Summary Case No. 79 of 1980 whereby the learned Judge had granted leave to defend on condition that the defendant deposits the entire amount of Rs. 8,000/- claimed in the suit.
2. Mr. J.M. Patel, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the order directing the defendant to deposit the entire amount claimed in the suit is unreasonable and it amounts to almost decreeing the suit. There is hardly any ground for Mr. Divetia, the learned Counsel for the opponent, to defend the impugned order. It is quite clear that the Court grants even conditional leave to defend when it finds that there is some plausible ground available to the defendant which he can put in to resist the claim of the plaintiff. When the Court comes to the conclusion that there is some plausible defence, then, it would not be fair or just for the Court to impose a condition which would be tantamount to decreeing the whole suit. The conditional leave to defend should impose a condition which should be not only reasonable but also it should take into account the possibility that the suit may ultimately fail and may be dismissed. The trial Court cannot take it for granted that the suit is bound to be decreed. At the stage of granting conditional leave in a summary suit, the trial Court should bear in mind all the possibilities. Hence, in this case, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the defendant be granted leave to defend on condition that he deposits Rs. 4,000/- which would be equal to half the amount claimed in the suit.
3. In the result, the rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.