CR No.3295 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.3295 of 2006
Date of Decision: 14.10.2009
Sukhwinder Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Bodh Raj ..Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present : Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner
None for the respondent.
---
Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
19.5.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar
vide which while allowing the application moved by the petitioner for leave
to defend, a condition was imposed directing the petitioner to furnish
security bond in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lac only) with one
surety, undertaking therein to comply with the decree, which may ultimately
CR No.3295 of 2006 2
be passed in the suit.
The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned
part of the order vide which the petitioner was directed to furnish security
bond and surety, on the plea that the learned trial court on appreciation of
the stand taken in the application for leave to defend recorded a positive
finding that the plea raised could not be said to be frivolous and, therefore,
the petitioner was entitled to unconditional leave to defend, in view of the
positive finding that the defence raised by the petitioner was not frivolous or
moonshine. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed
reliance on the following judgments:-
1. Sunil Enterprises and Anr. Vs. SBI Commercial &
International Bank Ltd. (1998) 5 SCC 354;
2. M/s Hotel Paras & Anr. Vs. M/s Sound Vision 1999 (2)
Civil Court Cases, 380;
3. Babbar Vision India Pvt.Ltd.Vs. Rama Vision Ltd. 2003
(1) Recent Civil Reprts (Civil) 226 and
4. Wada Arun Asbestors (P) Ltd. Vs. Gujrat Water Supply
& Sewerage Board 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 425.
In view of the settled proposition of law, the impugned part of
the order cannot be sustained.
Consequently, this revision is allowed, the impugned part of the
order imposing a condition while granting, leave to defend directing the
petitioner to furnish security bond and one surety, is quashed. The
petitioner shall be entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
(Vinod K.Sharma)
14.10.2009 Judge
rp