Partly allowed

Malkiat Singh v. Harpreet Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2011CR/6526/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision challenged a lower court order requiring the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee to obtain leave to defend. The High Court partially allowed the revision, deeming the bank guarantee harsh, and substituted it with a requirement for a personal surety bond.

What did the court decide?

Leave to defend shall be granted instead of requiring a bank guarantee, subject to furnishing a personal surety bond to the tune of the suit amount.

Malkiat Singh Vs Harpreet Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 6526 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

**Civil Revision No. 6526 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.5.2011 *****

Maliat Singh

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Harpreet Singh

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR

¶11

Present:Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

**Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the respondent. *****

¶13

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶14

The present petitioner is being sued by respondent-plaintiff in a suit for recovery of Rs.60,000/- which he claimed on the basis of receipt and pronote alleged to have been executed by former in his favour. The petitioner appeared before the Court and, inter alia, took the plea that he never borrowed the loan from the plaintiff and sought leave to defend. Vide order dated 30.7.2009 the Court below granted leave to defend but on the condition of his furnishing bank guarantee equivalent to the suit amount i.e. Rs.60,000/-. Dis-satisfied with the same defendant has filed the present revision petition.

¶15

Heard.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the Court below has come to the conclusion that defendant has a good case of defence of the claim on merit, the leave so granted must be un-conditional. There is considerable force in the submission of learned counsel. The impugned order reveals that from the pleas taken by the defendant the Court

¶17

Civil Revision No. 6526 of 2009

¶18

¶19

came to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to make out a good case for granting leave to defend his case in favour of the defendant and the same are to be substantiated by way of evidence. In this view of the matter the condition of furnishing bank guarantee seems to be harsh one. In the circumstances, the present revision is partly allowed and instead of bank guarantee the petitioner shall furnish personal surety bond to the tune of the suit amount, thereby giving an undertaking to indemnify the plaintiff in case he is not succeeded in his defence.

¶20

Disposed of.

¶21

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

¶22

May 20, 2011 Jiten

Malkiat Singh v. Harpreet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malkiat Singh v. Harpreet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kakka Singh and Ors. Vs Jarnail Singh and Ors.

(O&M) State of Haryana Vs Shamsher Singh

State of Haryana Vs Smt Kamla

Ronki Ram etc. Vs -Do-

Ram Kumar & Ors. Vs -Do-

Shaym Bihari Vs Land Acquisition Collector