KAMLESH SHARMA Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent/plaintiff filed a summary suit under Order 37 of CPC for recovery of loan amount to the tune of Rs. 2,17,173/- against the petitioner/ defendant. After service of notice, the petitioner moved an application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 of CPC for grant of leave to defend. The trial court, vide order impugned, allowed petitioners application and granted leave to defend subject to condition of furnishing bank guarantee of the amount equivalent to the amount claimed in the suit.

(2.) Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality and propriety of the part of order impugned whereby the trial court granted leave to defend subject to condition of furnishing bank guarantee of the amount equivalent to the amount claimed in the suit.

(3.) Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit imposition of condition of furnishing bank guarantee as pre condition of grant of leave to defend, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is contrary to law and the trial Court has failed to exercise its discretion vested in it by law and also failed to appreciate Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of CPC in the light of decisions of Supreme Court in cases of M/s Sunil Enterprises and another Vs. SBI Commercial and International Bank Ltd., 1998 AIR(SCW) 2224and M/s Fixity Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Udyen Jain (HUF), 2010 AIR(SCW) 489.