Honble KOTHARI, J.—Heard the learned counsel.

(2). The learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant has submitted that while granting leave to defend by the impugned order dtd. 21.8.2007, the learned trial Court has erred in imposing condition of furnishing security for decree passed in summary trial under Order 37 C.P.C. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Har Narain vs. Nagami Lal reported in 1987 (2) RLR 202 = 1987 RLW 677 wherein relying upon the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Machalee Engineers and Manufacturers vs. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation reported in AIR 1977 (SC) 577, the Court held that unless the trial Court comes to the conclusion prima facie that the defence sought to be raised by the defendant under Order 37 Rule 5 CPC is sham or moonshine, the learned trial Court cannot impose condition of furnishing solvent security while granting leave to defend.

(3). The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sunil Enterprises and another vs. SBI Commercial and International Bank Ltd. reported in 1998 DNJ (SC) 205 = RLW 1998(3) SC 318, wherein the Honble Supre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document