JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
1. In a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,51,800/- filed under Order 37 CPC on the basis of a pronote allegedly executed by the petitioner, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 8.4.2003 granted leave to defend the suit subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,75000/- by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for review of the said order which, however, has been dismissed vide order dated 5.10.2004. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the order directing the petitioner to furnish surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,75000/- has been passed mechanically and without assigning any valid reasons. According to him, since the petitioner-defendant has denied execution of any pronote in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, he ought not to have been asked to furnish any surety bonds. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Saurashtra v. Ashit Shipping Services (P) Ltd. 2002 (2) RCR (Civil) 598 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Shila Vati v. Vijay Kumar etc. 1975 CLJ 633.
4. In State Bank of Saurashtra’s case (supra), the Supreme Court has laid down the parameters to be kept in view before refusing leave to defend a suit filed under Order 37 CPC.
5. In Smt. Shila Vati’s case (supra), this Court has held that an order for furnishing security should always be applauded with reasons.
6. As can be noticed from the impugned order, leave to defend has already been granted to the petitioner. The learned trial Court in its later order dated 5.10.2004 has also assigned the reasons in support of its conditional order.
7. Since the discretion vested in it has been exercised by the trial Court for valid and justifiable reasons, namely, no interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted.
8. Consequently, while dismissing this revision petition, it is directed that if the petitioner furnishes the requisite surety bonds and/or any other adequate security to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of one month from today, he will be permitted to defend himself in the suit in terms of the orders passed by the trial Court.