JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 2.9.2009 Whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Alwar allowed the leave to defend on furnishing a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/- before the trial Court within a period of one month, failing which the respondent-plaintiff shall be entitled to get a decision. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned order. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the learned trial Court arbitrarily imposed a condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/- while allowing the leave to defend application. He further canvassed that even the law does not envisage imposition of any condition while allowing the application for leave to defend. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He cited three judgments reported in AIR 1999 Raj. 98 , M/s. Hotel Paras and Anr. v. M/s. Sound Vision , 2003(2) DNJ (Raj.) 978, Murari Lal Rathore v. M/s. Jagdamba Traders & Anr. , and AIR 2002 Delhi 214, Rajesh Bansal v. M/s. Ansal Housing Construction Ltd. in support thereof. 4. E-converso learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the condition could be imposed while allowing the application seeking leave to defend and he cited one judgment reported in WLC 2009(1) 447, Mukesh Kumar v. Bhopal Singh and Ors. in support thereof. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the judgments cited before me, it is found that this Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. Bhopal Singh and Ors. (supra) held that imposition of condition while granting leave to defend is within the domain of the learned trial Court as provision itself indicates. Whereas, in all the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner it is mentioned nowhere that the learned trial Court could not impose the condition while allowing the application seeking leave to defend. Hence, in view of the judgment cited before me, the impugned order is not found to be arbitrary or perverse. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently held that this Court should exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution only when the impugned order is found to be totally perverse or contrary to facts or it results manifesting injustice. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently held that this Court should exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution only when the impugned order is found to be totally perverse or contrary to facts or it results manifesting injustice. Nothing is found in the impugned order which could suggest that it was contrary to law, hence, in view of above fact as also legal situation, the writ petition is,found to be totally devoid of substance and bereft of any merit, which deserves to be dismissed and the same stands dismissed accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******