RAM CHARAN SHARMA Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set -aside the order dated 1st February, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Kota, allowed the application of the defendant -petitioner, granted him leave to defend and asked the defendant -petitioner to furnish the security for Rs. 86,622/ - .

(2.) Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that respondent -plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 86,622/ - against the petitioner - defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant -petitioner filed an application under Order 37 Rule (3) imploring the court to grant leave to defend the suit. The learned trial court allowed the application but subject to the condition of furnishing security for Rs. 86,622/ - . By way of the instant writ petition, the defendant -petitioner has assailed the condition of furnishing security. It is relevant to record that it is the discretion of the court to ask for security from the defendant. If the Court asked for security while granting leave to defend the suit, the learned trial court is found not to have committed any illegality.

(3.) IN view of above, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is found to be just and apt and it is found to have suffered from no infirmity.