JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.5.1993 passed by the learned trial Court directing the petitioner to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs to be paid to the plaintiff in the event of the suit being decreed. The petitioner-defendant has filed the present revision petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the suit is not covered by the provisions of O. 37, CPC and the reading of the plaint does not make out any case on the basis of which the impugned order could be passed or the defendant could be refused leave. He was entitled to be granted unconditional leave to defend and even the question of obtaining leave would not arise in the suit. 3. After going through the impugned order I find that no such argument finds mentioned therein which would mean the argument was not raised before the learned trial Court it was for the petitioner to raise an argument and then invite the attention of the Court to make observations on the point. 4. A reading of the order reveals that there are business dealings between the parties and the plaintiff supplied certain articles for which a cheque was issued and later dishonoured. The defence is that the cheque was given as advance payment. 5. A reading of O. 37, CPC, under which impugned order appears to have been passed gives a wide discretion to the learned trial Court to pass and order on being satisfied on the existing grounds. The discretion does not appear to have been exercised illegally and the order appears to be perfectly just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 6. The defendant has been granted permission to contest the suit provided he furnishes a security to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs within one month of the order. The defendant-petitioner may still raise an objection to the applicability of O. 37 in case the law so permits. I am supported in my view by a decision of this Court reported in M/s. Rajasthan Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. The Bank of Raj. Ltd., 1994(3) WLC (Raj.) 510. 7. The time granted to the petitioner-defendant for furnishing of the security stands expired. I am supported in my view by a decision of this Court reported in M/s. Rajasthan Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. The Bank of Raj. Ltd., 1994(3) WLC (Raj.) 510. 7. The time granted to the petitioner-defendant for furnishing of the security stands expired. The defendant-petitioner is given a period of four weeks from today to do the needful in compliance- with the order passed by the learned trial Court. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties no case is made out for interference.The revision petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. No costs.Revision Rejected. *******