ORDER
Sat Pal, J.
1. This petition has been directed against the order dated 30th May, 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panipat. By this order, the learned trial Court has granted leave in favour of the defendants without imposing any conditions.
2. Mr. Jagga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Bank has relied on Section 82 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and para 6 of the grounds of revision and contends that in terms of S. 82, the acceptor of the Hundis was bound to pay the amount of the Hundi. He, therefore, contends that in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s. Mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, AIR 1977 SC 577, the learned trial Court could not have granted the leave unconditionally.
3. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that in the application seeking the leave, respondent/defendants had clearly stated that M/s. Rajasthan Wooltex Ltd. used to send its goods to Panipat for sale through the defendants who were only the agents of the said firm. He further submits that in the application, it was stated that the alleged bills were not being honoured for more than one year; still the plaintiff-dBank went on purchasing the bills from M/s. Rajasthan Wooltex. He, therefore/contends that in such a situation the learned trial Court has rightly granted leave to defend the suit without imposing any conditions. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in M/ s. Sunil Enterprises v. S.B.I. Commercial and International Bank Ltd., 1998 (3) JT (SC) 641.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the | parties and having perused the records, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. In the case of M/s. Sunil Enterprises (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the leave to the defendant be granted without any condition. In that case also, the .Bank had continued to pay on Bills of exchange accepted by the party who was already a defaulter. As stated herein above also, it is the allegation of the re*pondents that for full one year the Bank had been purchasing the Hundis and making payment to M/s. Rajasthan Wooltex though the alleged bills were not being honoured. In view of the said facts and law laid down by the Apex Court in^the abovementioned case of M/s. Sunil Enterprises (supra), this petition has to be dismissed.
5. Admittedly, in the present case, the suit was filed in year 1991 and since it is a bank suit, I am of the opinion that the suit should be disposed of expeditiously. Accordingly, I direct the learned trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within one year from the date when a Copy of the order passed today is supplied to the learned trial Court.
With this order, the petition stands disposed of.