Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Kamal Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
Ajay Sharma – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION NO. 3118 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-07-2023
Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 - Revision petition - The petitioner challenged the First Appellate Court's order requiring a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The Court found the requirement to be harsh and modified it, allowing a bank guarantee of 50% and security of immovable property for the remainder. (Paras 3, 4, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the First Appellate Court's direction to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/- following a trial court's judgment decreeing the plaintiff's suit for recovery with interest. The petitioner argued that this condition was harsh. (Paras 3, 5)
Findings of Court:
The Court acknowledged the burden imposed by a full bank guarantee and found modification necessary. The petitioner will provide a bank guarantee for 50% of the decretal amount and secure the remaining with immovable property. (Paras 6, 7)
Issues: Whether the condition imposed by the First Appellate Court for furnishing a bank guarantee was excessively harsh? (Para 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the stringent requirement for a full bank guarantee is excessive and modified the order to mitigate the financial burden on the petitioner. (Para 7)
Result: Revision petition is disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to first appellate court's interim order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner argues condition for bank guarantee is harsh. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's observation on financial implications of bank guarantees. (Para 6) |
| 4. modification of the bank guarantee terms. (Para 7) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of the revision petition. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Despite the service of notice, the respondent has not entered appearance.
2. On 31.05.2023, the operation of the impugned order was ordered to be stayed.
3. In this revision petition, the correctness of the order passed by the First Appellate Court directing the petitioner (appellant before the First Appellate Court) to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/- has been assailed.
4. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 16.03.2023, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 20,00,000/- along with the simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till the actual realization of the amount. The first appeal is stated to be pending.
5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of the entire decretal amount is harsh. He submits that the petitioner is prepared to furnish the security of his immovable property.
6. This Court has considered the submissions. The First Appellate Court, while granting an interim order, has directed the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/-. For an ordinary person, where the bank issues a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/-, the entire amount along with the interest and charges will have to be deposited.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the First Appellate court on 08.05.2023 is modified and it is directed that the petitioner will furnish a bank guarantee of 50% of the amount of the decretal amount, whereas for the remaining amount, he will furnish the security of immovable property before the First Appellate Court.
8. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of.
9. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.
