HOTEL PARAS Vs. SOUND VISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-defendants have filed this revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated 19-11-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 179/97 whereby the learned Judge though granted leave to defend to the petitioners, imposed the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the suit amount of Rs. 1,44,300/-.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the above amount against the defendants on the footing of the balance found due from the defendants in respect of the mutual dealings. The defendants filed an application on 15-9-1997 challenging the suit amount and alleged that the suit has been filed on forged documents. The defendants stated that plaintiff gave a notice for Rs. 2,83,120/- but the suit was filed only for Rs. 1,44,300/-. The defendants further took pleas of non-joinder of the other partners of the firm, insufficient Court-fees, unsigned bills and limitation etc. The defendants, therefore, made a prayer for leave to defend the suit.

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge then addressed himself to the prayer made by the plaintiff and stated the cardinal principle which govern the question of granting or withholding the leave to defend and in the instant case after a perusal of the application of the defendants and the documents, felt persuaded to grant leave to defend in terms of Order 37, Rule 3, C.P.C. on the condition that the defendants furnishes a bank guarantee of the above amount within a period of one month from the date of the impugned order.