PREMNARAYAN GUPTA Vs. OMPRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-non-applicant, Dr. Om Prakash Gupta, filed a suit in the court of District Judge, Gwalior, under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), in which a claim of Rs. 34,000/- was made against the defendant-applicant. Within ten days from the service of the notice of the suit, under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Order 37 of the Code, the defendant entered appearance and sought leave to defend. Leave was granted to him by the trial Court on condition that he should deposit amount. The impugned order can be quoted conveniently as below : -

(2.) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner Shri R. D. Jain that the inpugned order is not a judicial order, it is also not a speaking order because no reasons have been assigned as to why the defendant should deposit the secutity amount. As the impugned order is not a reasoned order, it should be quashed, as it is not maintainable in law. Besides this, other points have also been raised, but they are not material to decide the issue.

(3.) SHRI K. S. Tomar, appearing for the plaintiff-non-applicant has submitted that though the trial Court has not given reasons, yet the order for furnishing security is not prejudicial to the plaintiff and it should not be interfered in revision by this Court, because it was passed by trial Court using the judicial discretion.