BHARAT OIL DEPOT Vs. PARI PRAFULCHANDRA KANTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed by the defendant No. 4 to the Summary suit filed by the present respondent No. 1 in the Court below.

(2.) The present respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for recovering a sum of Rs. 24 900 against respondents Nos. 2 3 and 4. The present petitioner was impleaded as defendant in the suit because he was alleged to have been a surety for the amount said to have been advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants Nos. 2 3 and 4. The learned trial Judge had after considering the defence and the documentary evidence come to the tentative conclusion that the defendants had a valid defence and therefore he granted leave to defend but imposed the condition that the defendants should deposit a sum of Rs. 20 901 Against this order of imposing a condition of depositing a sum of Rs. 20 901 the present petition is filed.

(3.) Mr. V. C. Desai the learned Advocate for the petitioner has urged that once the trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is a plausible defence in the suit it is neither fair nor just for the Court to impose a condition whereby more than 80% of the amount claimed is directed to be deposited in Court. Mr. Desai has further submitted that it is unfair to the defendant to call upon him to deposit any amount when there are triable issues between the parties and there is a possibility that the plaintiffs suit may ultimately be dismissed. According to him the condition imposed by the learned trial Judge is unjust and deserves to be set aside.