D KRITHIVENI Vs. P SHIVARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in a suit for recovery of money of Rs. 2,84,110/- has preferred this revision, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the trial court in la. Under sections 94 and 151 of the CPC directing the defendants to furnish the security for the suit claim.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had failed to repay the money taken for the construction of the house at whitefield. She has also borrowed Rs. 50,000/- on 16-9-1991 by executing on demand promissory note. When the cheques given by her were dishonoured on presentation, complaint in cc No. 16023 of 1995 was filed before the viii additional chief metropolitan magistrate. The magistrate in that case ordered to take action against accused under Section 193 of the IPC read with Section 430 of the cr. P. c. for tampering the court records believed to have been committed by the accused to suit the defence. The defendant was originally working as a gazetted officer in government of karnataka. Now it is represented that she is not in government job. It is clear from the conduct of the defendant that she would delay and protract the proceedings as she was doing in the criminal case. On such application, it was prayed that the defendant be called upon to furnish the security for the suit claim. It was opposed by the defendant stating that the defendant is a responsible lady in the society. If the court passes the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant is known to pay the decreetal amount and the criminal case where she has been convicted, a criminal appeal in No. 40 of 1998 was filed before the sessions judge, Bangalore and the same is pending. The case is part heard and necessarily the case is to be disposed of at an early date. On the said averments and the objections made, the trial court has chosen to exercise its discretion finding that the defendant is taking time on one pretext or other for cross-examination of P. W. 1 and holding that the plaintiff has got a prima facie case and the conduct of the defendant shows that she is not interested in early disposal of the case or payment of the amount if the decree is passed, passed the impugned order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no necessity to pass such an order especially when the matter is pending and is part heard. The defendant is ready to get along with the case without causing any further delay.