Defendant challenged conditional leave to defend granted in a summary suit. On the plaintiff's consent, the court converted the arrangement into a normal suit made time bound, directing decision within 18 months with three effective evidence opportunities each.
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.
121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-388-2023
Date of decision : 01.08.2024 TAPINDER SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
RANJIT SINGH ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkirat Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Defendant is in revision challenging the order dated 11.05.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha whereby application filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking leave to defend in summary suit filed under Order XXXVII CPC has been allowed subject to condition that he shall furnish surety bonds of Rs.3,00,000/-.
| August 0 | 1, 2024 | (Pankaj Jain) |
|---|---|---|
| Dpr | Judge | |
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes/No |
|
| Whether reportable | : Yes/No |
Deepak Kumar 2024.08.01 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC could be conditioned on furnishing surety bonds of Rs. 3,00,000/-?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tapinder Singh
Ranjit Singh
Pankaj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
