JUDGMENT : Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. 1. Although matter comes upon second stay petition laid on behalf of appellant but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal itself is heard finally at this stage. 2. By the instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(q) read with Rule 41 CPC, appellant-defendant has challenged order dated 11.07.2018, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh (for short, 'learned Court below'). By the order impugned learned Court below, while considering application of respondent-plaintiff under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC in a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41,34,448/-, asked the appellant-defendant to furnish bank guarantee of the aforesaid amount with undertaking that he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that, while passing the impugned order, learned Court below has not recorded its satisfaction about the requirements envisaged under Rule 1 of Order 38 CPC, and therefore, there was apparently no reason to believe that appellant is likely to leave the country. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Choudhary, has submitted that the Court, in its discretion, has asked appellant to furnish requisite bank guarantee and undertaking, which cannot be made subject matter of judicial review in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. It is also argued by learned counsel that essentially appeal under Order 43 is an appeal on principle and cannot be equated with regular first appeal, and therefore, scope of judicial review in appeals under Order 43 is very much limited. 5. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advances at Bar. 6. Upon perusal of the impugned order, in my view, although learned Court below has not recorded its satisfaction but having regard to the amount involved and the over-all fact scenario, in my opinion, asking the appellant to furnish bank guarantee of the aforesaid amount appears to be too harsh, and therefore, the impugned order to that extent is liable to be interfered with. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified and the appellant is directed to furnish solvent surety for the requisite amount before learned Court below within a period of three weeks. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 9. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified and the appellant is directed to furnish solvent surety for the requisite amount before learned Court below within a period of three weeks. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 9. Looking to the lis involved in the matter, learned Court below is also expected to expedite trial in the suit and decide it as expeditiously as possible.