S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—This is a defendants first appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi dated April 24, 1978, passed in Civil Original Suit No. 9 of 1977.

2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is the wife of plaintiff-respondent No. 2. The plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit for Rs. 21,488.50 paise against the defendant-appellant on May 20, 1977 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi. The suit was based on a promissory note dated September 1, 1972, which is alleged to have been executed by the defendant against the outstanding amount of Rs. 14,001/- stipulating to pay interest at the rate of Re. 1/-per cent per mensem. It was averred that Rs. 13,501./- were due from the defendant to plaintiff No. 1 on account of principal after deducting Rs. 500/-, which Was paid by the defendant on June 27, 1974. According to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 7980/- was outstanding on account of interest and Rs. 7.50 were claimed on account of notice expenses and telegram charges. It was mentioned in the plaint that plaintiff No. 1 is the original creditor, but as plaintiff No. 2 is plaintiff No. ls Mukhtiar Khas and, therefore, he was being impleaded as plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs obtained summons of the defendant under the provisions of O. XXXVII, r. 2, C.P.C. and this summons was served on defendants son on June 24, 1977. Thereafter, the plaintiffs obtained summons for judgment in a summary suit under XXXVII, r. 3, C.P.C. This summons was issued on July 23, 1977 for the hearing of August 3, 1977. On August 3, 1977, the trial court ordered that the summons should be served personally on the defendant. The defendant submitted an application on August 18, 1977 supported by an affidavit for leave to defend. It was, inter alia stated in that application that the defendant has not received any consideration mentioned in the pronote, that he did not have any dealing with plaintiff No. 1, that the transaction was Benami and that the plaintiff No. 2 had remained his Advocate in various matters and as he was yielding great influence over him he got the pronote executed by him (defendant-appellant) in favour of his wife plaintiff No. 1. He prayed in the application which was supported by an affidavit that there were triable issues, under O. XXXVII, r. 3(5) C.P.C. unconditional leave to defend the suit may be granted to him. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing a reply on September 14, 1977. The learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated January 21, 1978 reached the conclusion that the grounds on which the defendant wanted an unconditional leave to defend the suit did not disclose any substantial defence and that they were frivolous and vexatious. He however, granted leave to the defendant to defend the suit on the condition that he should furnish bank guarantee in respect of the amount in suit, interest and costs of a nationalise bank within a fortnight of his order dated January 21, 1978. In the order, it was also mentioned that in case the defendant failed to furnish the bank guarantee, as ordered, within the aforementioned time, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to a decree as per their suit.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated January 21,1978, the defendant submitted a revision petition to this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Revision No. 41 of 1978. When the revision petition came up for admission before this Court, Mr. Kewal Chand, appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, passed the following order on February 3, 1978 :

"Heard learned counsel for both the parlies. Mr. Mehta appearing for the petitioner urges that the condition of Bank guarantee imposed upon the petitioner would work out harshly against the defendant petitioner. It is not possible to interfere with that order in the revisional jurisdiction. Although if such a request would have been made before the trial Court, it might have be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document