DALIP MALIK Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 04.05.2010 whereby while allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner, the trial Court imposed costs of Rs.5000/-and directed him to furnish security of Rs.30 lacs in the Court failing which the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was ordered to be dismissed, automatically.

(2.) AS per the version of the petitioner, plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for decree of specific performance on 21.09.2004 on the basis of an agreement dated 09.09.2002 allegedly executed by the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that he is pursuing the case diligently. However, vide order dated 14.12.2009, since there was no presence on behalf of the petitioner, the trial Court ordered to proceed ex parte against him. Petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC on 20.01.2010, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 14.12.2009 whereby the trial court had proceeded ex parte against the petitioner. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 04.05.2009 though allowed the application and set aside the order dated 14.12.2009 subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-and imposed a further condition on the petitioner to furnish in Court a security of Rs.30 lacs within a week, failing which the application was ordered to be deemed to be automatically dismissed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned Award and other documents attached with the revision petition.