R.S.A. No.824 of 2009 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No.824 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 9.3.2009
M/s Sant Feed Industries & another
....Appellants
Versus
Manohar Lal
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
Present : Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate
for the appellants.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
C.M.No.3011-C of 2009
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and the case is preponed to today.
C.M.No.2355-CII of 2009
Delay of 3 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
R.S.A. No.824 of 2009
The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery on the
basis of pronote under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The appellants, who were defendants, moved an
application for leave to defend within the stipulated period and the
same was allowed subject to their furnishing adequate security. The
appellants failed to furnish the same within the time frame granted by
the learned trial Court leaving the Court with no other option but to
proceed with the case by treating the application for leave to defend
R.S.A. No.824 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
as withdrawn.
The suit was ultimately decreed as the evidence produced
before the learned trial Court pointed to the validity of the pronote.
In appeal, the findings of the learned trial Court were
affirmed.
The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the
aforesaid findings to contend that the appellants were precluded from
furnishing the security pursuant to the orders passed on the
application for leave to defend as the appellant No.2 was residing
abroad.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am
of the opinion that the plea as raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants is totally misplaced. The suit was concededly filed under
the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which an
application for leave to defend was moved. The said application was
allowed subject to furnishing of security which was not deposited by
the appellants. The reason given for not depositing the security is that
the appellant No.2 was residing abroad. I am afraid such an excuse
cannot be accepted at this belated stage. If the appellant No.2 was
residing abroad, it was for him to make some arrangement to
prosecute the case effectively, which was not done. The learned trial
Court even otherwise on the basis of evidence before it concluded
regarding the validity of the pronote and its execution by the
appellants. The said findings were affirmed by the first Appellate
Court. In this view of the matter, when pure questions of fact have
been determined by the Courts below and no substantial question of
R.S.A. No.824 of 2009 (O&M) -3-
law arises for the determination of this Court, the appeal being totally
devoid of any merit is dismissed.
9.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER)
JUDGE
dss