SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(MP) 658

ANIL VERMA
MANISH S/o BABULAL CHAUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
DHARMENDRA S/o MOHANLAL KACHAWA – Respondent


ORDER : – The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by impugned order dated 4-3-2020, passed by the 14th Civil Judge Class, I Indore whereby the petitioners have been directed to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs. 3,49,385/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a summary civil proceedings under Order 39, Rule 1(1) and (2) of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for recovery of the amount with the averment mentioned therein against respondents/defendants No. 1 and 2. The respondents/ defendants filed an application for granting leave to defend under Order 37, Rule 3(5) of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , but learned trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 4-3-2020 and granted leave to defend with imposing a condition that submitting bank guarantee of sum of Rs. 3,49,385/-. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that trial Court has imposed condition to furnish bank guarantee, this condition has made impossible to file defence against the plaintiffs case and petitioners are facing grave injust

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top