N.C. SHARMA, J.—This is a revision by the defendants against the order of the Additional District Judge, Barmer, dated September 27, 1986, whereby in civil suit No. 9 of 1980 filed by the non-petitioner Nawal Kishor in its Court for the recovery of an amount of Rs.83,700/-as principal and Rs. 11,700/- as interest, in all Rs. 95,400/- instituted against the petitioners on the basis of an alleged Khata executed by petitioner No. 2 on behalf of the partnership firm petitioner No. 1 on April 2, 1985 after going through the accounts by various amounts alleged to have been advanced by plaintiff non-petitioner to the petitioner by various demand drafts dated June 18, 1984 and June 28, 1984. This suit was filed under O. XXXV1I of the Code of Civil Procedure. In accordance with sub-rule (1) of r. 3 of O. XXXVII, the plaintiff-non-pelitioner served upon the defendants-petitioners a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto together with the summons under r. 2 of the said Order. The defendants-petitioners entered their appearance before the Additional District Judge, Barmer on May 3, 1986 and filed his address for service of notices on them. The plaintiffs counsel was then directed to serve on the defendants-petitioners a summon for judgment in form No. 4A in Appendix B. In pursuance thereof the defendants made an application under 0.XXXVII r.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to defend the suit instituted by the non-petitioner, in his application for leave to defend, the petitioner No. 2 had requested that leave may be granted without attaching any condition of giving security. The Additional District Judge, Barmer by his order dated September 27, 1986, decided this application and granted leave to the petitioners to defend the aforesaid suit filed by the non-petitioner. The Additional District Judge, however, imposed a condition that the petitioners shall give security within 10 days to the effect that in case the plaintiffs suit was decreed, the surety would also be liable to pay the decretal amount. It is against this order of imposing the condition of giving security that the defendants have come in revision to this Court.

2. I have heard Mr. Suresh Shrimali appearing for the petitioners.

3. At the outset, I may mention the reasons given by the Additional District Judge, Barmer in his impugned order for imposing the condition of giving security on the petitioners. The defendants while disclosing facts sufficient to entitle them to defend, mentioned in their application under 0.XXXVII r.5 of the Code that the khata dated April 2, 1985 on the basis of which the suit had been filed by the non-petitioner was forged one and has been fabricated in collusion and that it does not bear the signatures of Arjandas defendant No 2. The Additional District Judge observed that on September 11,. 1986 a Police Inspector of Police Station Halol in Gujarat had come to the court in connection with? a case lodged with regard to the fabrication of this document and had, with the permission of the court, taken a photo-copy of the document. He then proceeded on to state that although this fact does not effect the merits of the case, but the plea of the petitioners that the document was a result of some conspiracy or was fabricated would be a matter which would be clear only after the evidence is recorded. According to him in case where there is no substantial defence, leave to defend should be granted on giving of security by the defendant. On this basis, the Additional District Judge imposed the condition on the defendants to furnish the security as aforesaid. This matter had come for consideration in the case of Sundaram Chettiar V. Valli Ammal (1). In that case Valli Ammal respondent had filed a suit on promissory note against Sundaram Chettiar claiming Rs. 3150/-, the face value of the promissory note being Rs. 4,000/-. She was unable to produce the promissory note and sued for the lesser amount upon the ground that the defendant had made a part p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document