Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 255 (AP)

Vishnu Das Baheti v. Abhishek Kerthan

2013-04-03

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
Order: These two revisions are filed by the same petitioner, but against two different respondents. Hence, they are disposed of through this common order. The respondents filed O.S.Nos.376 and 377 of 2009 against the petitioner in the Court of II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of amounts on the strength of promissory notes. They have invoked summary procedure under Order XXXVII of C.P.C. In addition to that, they have also filed individual applications under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C for attachment before judgment of certain items. The trial Court passed separate orders on 22.06.2009 directing conditional attachment of the petition schedule properties. The orders are subsisting. On receiving summons for judgment, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.2138 and 2139 of 2009 under Order XXXVII Rule 5 of C.P.C with a prayer to grant leave to defend. It was pleaded that the promissory notes on the basis of which the suits are filed are fabricated and that orders of attachment before judgment are already in force. Other facts are also pleaded. The applications were opposed by the respondents. Through separate orders, dated 21.10.2010, the trial Court granted leave to defend to the petitioner, but imposed a condition that the petitioner shall furnish security for the suit amount. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the condition imposed by the trial Court. Hence these two revisions. Heard Sri P. Ram Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondents. It is already mentioned that the respondents invoked summary proceedings under Order XXXVII of C.P.C. Normally, in such cases, the applications under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC are not filed. However, the respondents have filed such applications and obtained orders of attachment before judgment. The petitioner did not file an application to set aside the same. On receiving the summons for judgment, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 5 of Order XXXVII of C.P.C with a prayer to grant leave to defend the suit. The trial Court has undertaken extensive discussion and expressed the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of leave. On the basis of that finding, the trial Court ought to have simply granted leave to defend the suit. However, it proceeded to direct the petitioner to furnish security for the suit amount. The condition imposed by the trial Court cannot be sustained for two reasons. On the basis of that finding, the trial Court ought to have simply granted leave to defend the suit. However, it proceeded to direct the petitioner to furnish security for the suit amount. The condition imposed by the trial Court cannot be sustained for two reasons. The first is that the security for the suit amount is already existing in the form of attachment before judgment. The second is that the trial Court expressed the view that the petitioner has a case to defend. That itself is sufficient to grant leave to defend and it cannot be burdened with any other condition. Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the condition imposed by the trial Court for furnishing security is set aside. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in these revisions shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.