SHANAVAZZ MOHAMED Vs. A. NOORDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Mr.Shanavazz Mohamed has filed the present appeal aggrieved by the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.Nos.2603 and 2604 of 2019 in C.S.No.502 of 2018 filed by the plaintiff against the defendants Mrs.Parveen Jaleela and Mr.A.Noordeen. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has deleted the condition imposed by the Master in his order dated 26.02.2019 in A.Nos.6717 of 2018 and 6354 of 2018 in the said Civil Suit in C.S.No.502 of 2018 filed for summary trial under Order XXXVII of C.P.C., directing the defendants to furnish security of Rs.50,00,000/- within a period of four weeks ie., on or before 26.03.2019. On the appeal filed by the plaintiff himself, the learned Single Judge has opined in view of the reasons given in Paragraph 6 of the order that the said condition was onerous and the leave to defend deserves to be granted to the defendants as unconditional leave because the plaintiff made the advance of Rs.43,00,000/- as a business investment and not as a loan advance.

(2.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff / appellant before us has urged that the condition imposed by the Master could not have been said to be onerous and therefore the learned Single Judge has erred in deleting the said condition and granting unconditional leave to defend to the defendants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents have urged that there is no error in the order impugned before us and if the condition of furnish security has been deleted in the discretion of the learned Single Judge, no interference is called for.