CHAINA RAM Vs. JAI ROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned District Judge, Pali and Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 14/ 91. dated 3-8-1991 whereby he has rejected ! the verification of security bond submitted by the petitioner.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an ex parte money-decree against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent and for setting aside the trial Court order passed on 19- 10-1993 that the decree be set aside on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 500/- as cost and also submit solvent security for the decretal amount. The security bond submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court. However, in the meantime, the petitioner had preferred revision petition being S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 128/94 before this Court. The petitioner has submitted that before orders could be passed in the said revision petition on the stay application, in the meanwhile, the trial Court passed order dated 9- 2-1994 whereby the order dated 19-10-1993 stood automatically vacated. The petitioner thereupon challenged the said order dated 9-2-1994 before this Court in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 424/94 which was allowed by this Court on 21-11-1995 and the petitioner was directed to furnish solvent security with cost of Rs. 500/- within one month from the date of order.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the solvent security was filed before the trial Court on 20-12-1995 in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 21-11-95 along with certificate of status of the security issued by the Tehsildar, Pali. Objections were filed against acceptance of the security offered by the petitioner which were decided by the trial Court vide order dated 29-5-1999 directing the petitioner to furnish fresh security bond in accordance with law. The petitioner submitted fresh security bond vide application dated 3-8-1999 but the same was also opposed by the respondents on which the trial Court passed impugned order dated 18-11- 1999 by which security submitted by the petitioner along with verification was rejected. It is argued that the reasons mentioned in the order dated 18-11 99 are contrary to law and not tenable. The learned counsel submits that the trial Court has fallen into error while holding that verification is not given in Form No. 2 of Appendix-G to the Code of Civil Procedure. The Counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, contended that the trial Court has committed grave jurisdietional error in holding this view.