NEERU GUPTA Vs. LARSON AND TOUBRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against the order of the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh dated 6.12.1997.

(2.) The respondents filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-. In that suit, the defendant also made a counter claim. The suit was filed by the plaintiff under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant applied to defend the suit. While granting permission to the defendant to defend the suit, the trial Court directed the defendant to furnish security for the satisfaction of the decree, if any, to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, at the instance of the defendant, the present petitioner furnished security and also deposited his title deed relating to residential plot in Panchkula. The suit was ultimately dismissed and the counter claim made by the defendant was decreed against the plaintiff. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. Meanwhile, the revision-petitioner applied for return of the title deed, since the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant for whom furnished security, was dismissed. The trial Court by an order dated 3.12.1997 directed the return of the original title deed of the petitioner to him. Later by impugned order dated 6. 12.1997, the trial Court suo-moto stayed the order dated 3.12.97 directing the delivery of the original title deed to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this present revision petition.

(3.) When the suit was filed under the provisions of Order 37 of C.P.C., the defendant was required to furnish the security to defend the suit. Accordingly, the present petitioner furnished the security for the defendant and deposited his title deed with the Court. After dismissal of the suit against the defendant, the petitioner applied for return of his title deed. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, he applied for stay and the appellate Court granted the stay of execution of the decree which has been passed in the counter claim subject to the plaintiff-appellant furnishing bank guarantee for the amount decreed in favour of the defendant, in his counter claim. There is no order of appellate Court directing the defendant to furnish security which the plaintiff-appellant claims.