RATTAN SINGH RANGA Vs. RAM KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this civil revision filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, whereby his application for leave to defend the suit had been allowed subject to the condition that he shall furnish security of an amount of Rs. 1,62,000/ - within one month from the date of order. The submissions made by Mr. Kartar Singh Malik -I, learned counsel representing the petitioner have been considered.

(2.) The facts pleaded indicate that a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") for recovery of Rs. 10,62,000/ - was filed by the respondent against the petitioner. On receipt of summons, petitioner appeared before the trial Court and vide order dated 27.10.2008, the trial Court ordered for serving summons of judgment as per Order XXXVII Rule 3(4) of the Code. Against that order, the respondent filed Civil Revision No. 6246 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2012 with the direction that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 10,000/ - as costs precedent and thereupon trial Court shall serve summons of judgment on him as required under Order XXXVII Rule 3(4) of the Code and then to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The petitioner was also permitted to file application for leave to defend the suit on payment of cost. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application for leave to defend the suit. Respondent raised certain objections but the application was conditionally allowed vide impugned order dated 01.09.2015. The condition imposed was that the petitioner was directed to furnish security of an amount of Rs. 1,62,000/ - within one month from the date of order.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the condition imposed was illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had good defence on merits and therefore, he was entitled to unconditional leave to defend. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the petitioner was to be granted conditional leave to defend the security for the amount he has been directed to furnish, is on the higher side and be reduced.