Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur dated 10.01.1986 in Civil Suit No. 161/1985. 2. It is the case of the appellant that the suit was filed under Order 37 Rule 2, CPC and summons was issued by the trial Court under Order 37 Rule 2, CPC. He entered appearance on 16.06.1985. Thereafter, summons for Judgment was served and appellant applied for leave to defend. By order dated 210.1985, the leave to defend was granted on condition that the defendant appellant shall furnish solvent security in the sum of Rs. 11,000/-up to 211.1985. It is further submitted that 26th and 27th November were declared holidays and, therefore, the matter was taken on 211.1985. On the same day, the Presiding Officer was out on Government duty and the matter was taken up on 012.1985. It is stated that on 012.1985 again the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was ordered to be put up on 10.12.1985. It is submitted by the appellant that the case happened to be left out from the entry in the diary of the Counsel for the appellant and, therefore, the security was not furnished on 211.1985. But, thereafter, on 012.1985 the security was furnished. It is also submitted by the appellant that the application for condonation of delay was also filed on 12.1985 but the learned trial Court rejected the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 10.12.1985, therefore, it is obvious from these facts and circumstances that there was no lack on his part. Moreso, he filed application for condonation of delay but, the delay was not condoned and, thereafter the suit was decreed. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the suit was filed on the basis of promissory note and notices were issued under Order 37 Rule 2 CPC and an opportunity was granted by the trial Court vide order dated 210.1985 to submit solvent security within one month upto 211.1985 but it was not filed within time, therefore, vide order dated 10.12.1985 the application for condonation of delay occurred in furnishing the solvent security was rejected and that order became final, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit. He has submitted that there is no illegality in the order and finding given by the trial Court. 4. He has submitted that there is no illegality in the order and finding given by the trial Court. 4. I have perused the record. In my opinion, an opportunity was granted to the appellant defendant to furnish the solvent security of Rs. 11,000/-within one month but is was filed after delay on 012.1985 and thereafter an application for condonation of delay was filed by the defendant on 10.12.1985. On the same day, the trial Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and that order is not challenged further by the appellant and it became final. Therefore, in view of the fact right to defence was disallowed by the Court while rejecting the application dated 10.12.1985. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit on the basis of original promissory note. There is no error in the finding given by the trial Court while decreeing the suit in favour of defendant plaintiff. 5. There is no ground for interference in view of the fact that application for condonation of delay in filing the solvent security was rejected vide order dated 10.12.1985 and that order was not challenged by the appellant and it became final. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.