Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 579 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh v. Ashu Garg

2016-02-11

SHEKHER DHAWAN

body2016
JUDGMENT Mr. Shekher Dhawan, J.: - Present petition is challenge to the order dated 10.12.2015, whereby learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo imposed the condition of furnishing surety to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- while granting leave to defend the suit. 2. Relevant facts of the case that respondent herein had filed suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 17,40,000/- i.e. Rs. 12,00,000/- being the principal amount and Rs. 5,40,000/- being the amount of interest on the basis of pronote and the Court below after hearing both the parties, passed the following order:- “Arguments on the application for leave to defend heard. In view of the submissions made by both the partis, the Court is of the opinion that there is triable issue and defedant should be given opportunity to contest the case. However, he is granted leave to defend subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 6 lacs. Now to come up on 7.1.2016 for furnishing surety bonds and filing written.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Court below was of the view that there was a triable issue and defendant should be given an opportunity to contest the suit and had granted leave to defend the suit. But at the same time, the Court below imposed a condition to furnish surety bond in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- which is contrary to the provisions of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as there was triable issue in the case, so petitioner was entitled for grant of unconditional leave to defend the suit. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and appraisal of the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that as per provisions of Order 37 Rule 3 CPC, in such like simple suits, if the Court considers that there is some triable issue having been raised by the defendant, then leave to defend is to be granted. But the Court does not require to impose such a condition for furnishing security or to make payment in the Court. But the Court does not require to impose such a condition for furnishing security or to make payment in the Court. Such a view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State Bank of Hyderabad v. Rabo Bank [2015(5) Law Herald (SC) 3942 : 2015(5) Law Herald (P&H) 4602 (SC) : 2015 LawHerald.Org 2507] : 2015 AIR (SC) 3820 that in such like cases, if the Court finds that there is a triable issue or a reasonable defence, the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. Identical view was taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases M/s Uma Shankar Kamal Narain and Another v. M/s M.D.Overseas Limited [2007(2) Law Herald (SC) 1201] : 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 585 and Defiance Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Jay Arts 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 493. The Court below has ignored these facts while passing the order under challenge. 5. In view of above, present petition is disposed of with the modification in the order under challenge to the extent that petitioner shall be entitled to leave to defend without furnishing any surety bond.