Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202

it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses

Isher Singh v. Sarwan Singh AIR 1965 SC 948

We thus reach the position that in the former suit the heirship of the respondents to Jati deceased (a) was in terms raised by the pleadings, (b) that an issue was framed in regard to it by the trial Judge, (c) that evidence was led by the parties on that point directed towards this issue, (d) a finding was recorded on it by the appellate court, and (e) that on the proper construction of the pleadings it would have been necessary to decide the issue in order to properly and completely decide all the points arising in the case to grant relief to the plaintiff. We thus find that every one of the conditions necessary to satisfy the test as to the applicability of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is satisfied.

Santosh Kumar v. Mool Singh, (1958) S.C.R. 1211 : (A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 321); Milkiram (India) Private Ltd. v. Chaman Lal Bros., A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1698 and Michalec Eng. & Mfg. v. Basic Equipment Corporation, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 580 The Propositions laid down in these decisions may be summed up as follows:- (a) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on merits, 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 possibly good defence, 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, if the affidavit discloses that at the trial he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff's claim, the court may impose conditions at the time of granting leave to defend - the conditions being as to time of trial or more of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security. (d) If the defendant has no defence, or if the defence is sham or illusory or practically moonshine, 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, the Court may show mercy to the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence but at the same time protect the plaintiff by imposing the condition that the amount claimed should be paid into Court or otherwise secured.