A single-judge revision under Article 226 challenging a direction to furnish surety for leave to defend in an Order 37 suit. Petitioner argued the order was non-speaking; court found no illegality and dismissed the petition.
Revision petition dismissed; order of the trial court upholding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 5625 of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.9.2011
Amarjit Singh.
....... Petitioner.
Versus
Harpreet Singh Grover (Shinu).
...... Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Shri A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner.
allowed to see the judgment?
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J.
This is a revision petition brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Amarjit Singh-defendant questioning the legality of the order dated 11.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda directing him to furnish surety to the tune of Rs.one lakh.
Harpreet Singh Grover, respondent had brought a suit against the petitioner under the provisions of Order 37 of the C.P.C.
C.R. No. 5625 of 2011 -2-
for recovery of Rs.9,92,000/-. The petitioner applied for leave to defend and vide order dated 11.8.20111, leave to defend has been granted subject to the petitioner furnishing surety in a sum of Rs.one lakh.
The only submission made before me by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order is non-speaking. He could not take any other exception to the impugned order.
The order grants leave to defend to the petitioner. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner in his application for leave to defend the suit has been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show me any provision of the C.P.C. under which the demand of surety in a sum of Rs.one lakh as a condition for grant of leave to defend in a suit brought for recovery of Rs.9,92,000/- is in any way illegal.
For these reasons, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by learned trial court. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed.
September 15,2011 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) “SCM” JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a non-speaking order directing a petitioner to furnish surety for leave to defend is illegal.
Amarjit Singh
Harpreet Singh Grover (Shinu)
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
