VISHNU DAS BAHETI Vs. ABHISHEK KERTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions are filed by the same petitioner, but against two different respondents. Hence, they are disposed of through this common order. The respondents filed O.S. Nos. 376 and 377 of 2009 against the petitioner in the Court of II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of amounts on the strength of promissory notes. They have invoked summary procedure under Order XXXVII of C.P.C. In addition to that, they have also filed individual applications under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C. for attachment before judgment of certain items. The trial Court passed separate orders on 22.06.2009 directing conditional attachment of the petition schedule properties.

(2.) The orders are subsisting.

(3.) On receiving summons for judgment, the petitioner filed I.A. Nos. 2138 and 2139 of 2009 under Order XXXVII Rule 5 of C.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to defend. It was pleaded that the promissory notes on the basis of which the suits are filed are fabricated and that orders of attachment before judgment are already in force. Other facts are also pleaded. The applications were opposed by the respondents. Through separate orders, dated 21.10.2010, the trial Court granted leave to defend to the petitioner, but imposed a condition that the petitioner shall furnish security for the suit amount. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the condition imposed by the trial Court. Hence these two revisions.