HARVINDER SINGH Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent no.1 - Avtar Singh filed suit against Harnek Singh for recovery of Rs.3,42,750/-, under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short - CPC). However, Harnek Singh died and petitioners and proforma respondents no.2 to 4 herein were impleaded as legal representatives of Harnek Singh. Defendant's legal representatives filed application for leave to defend the suit. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, vide impugned order dated 21.07.2009 (Annexure P-3), allowed the said application subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- of immovable property.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that when a case for leave to defend was made out, the defendants could not be burdened with condition of furnishing of security. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment in the case of M/s Mechalec Engineers vs. M/s Basic Equipment, 1977 AIR(SC) 577.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1-plaintiff contended that petitioners no.1 and 4, even during the pendency of the instant revision petition, have disposed of some of their immovable property and if security is not furnished, the decree, that may be passed in favour of plaintiff-respondent no.1, would be defeated.