J. K. Mehra, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) BY this judgment I will dispose of three Civil Revision Nos. 703,838 and 839 of 1991 since common question arises in these petitions. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the promissory notes as well asreceipts were issued without consideration and were given in blank to onechander Shekhar who had agreed to get the premises vacated from the tenantsof the petitioner and the amount was to be collected by Chander Shekar butwas ultimately to be paid to the tenants on the premises being vacated. Thepetitioner further states that in the meantime the petitioner got the premisesvaeated by entering into appropriate deals with the tenants directly. In thecircumstances, there was no occasion to make the payments to the said tenantsthroough Chander Shekhar. The receipts as well as promissory notes wereissued according to the petitioner in blank and when the deal did not gothrough the said Shri Chander Shekhar he put up the names of seven partiesto institute 7 suits against the petitioner. Three of them are covered by thepresent petitions being disposed of today. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the respondent s case is that the promissorynotes were issued in consideration of the each respondent having paid to thepetitioner a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 for forming a group housing co-operativesociety. The money was accepted in cash. There is no information suppliedon the record as to wherefrom this amount was paid by the respondents. Further in case it was paid towards membership fee or for the said fee andother expenses there could not have been an occasion for giving a promissorynote. Only a receipt for the amount would have been given. ( 5 ) I have not been shown any document to substantiate the allegationof the formation of the co-operative society or any other papper which mighthave preceded the payment. ( 6 ) THE perusal of the pleas of the defendants raised in the applicationfor leave to defend does go to raise triable issue. ( 5 ) I have not been shown any document to substantiate the allegationof the formation of the co-operative society or any other papper which mighthave preceded the payment. ( 6 ) THE perusal of the pleas of the defendants raised in the applicationfor leave to defend does go to raise triable issue. The concern of the trialcourt to safeguard the interest of the respondents/plaintiffs is undertandable,but, in my opinion, the Court should not have imposed a condition of bankguarantee because normally it places serious strain on the resources of anyparty which is called upon to furnish the bank guarantee, particularly, whenthe petitioner, who is a government employee and is not having a runningbusiness With banking facilities. In these circumstances, I allow the petitiononly to the extent that the petitioner can offer the security by creating a chargeon his property. No. 305 Prakash Gali. Teliwara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-6 to coverthe claim in all the suits in respect whereof the present civil revisions have beenfiled. ( 7 ) I feel, it would have been appropriate if all the 7 suits could betried by the same Judge to prevent any conflict of decisions or proliferationof litigation between the partics. However, it is something for the petitioner to look into and take appropriate steps to move the Court for thepurpose. ( 8 ) THE present revisions petitions stand disposed of in the abovetermswith no order as to costs. The needful regarding furnishing of security bedone by the petitioner before the trial Court within one month from today. ( 9 ) PARTIES are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20/04/1992. Petitions disposed of.