Summary of the Judgment:

The petitioner, a practicing advocate, challenged an order dated 4.10.2004 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in a summary suit under Order 37 CPC (Civil Suit No. 3-B/2004), directing deposit of Rs. 2,50,000. (!) (!)

The suit was filed by the respondent, a retired judicial officer turned advocate, against the petitioner on promissory notes. Summons in Form No. 4 Appendix B were issued; petitioner appeared. Summons for judgment in Form No. 4A followed. Petitioner filed grounds of defense within time under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC, and the trial court granted unconditional leave to defend on 16.7.2004, finding a plausible defense, fixing written statement for 29.7.2004. (!)

Petitioner's grounds: (i) No condition imposed while granting unconditional leave under Order 37 Rule 3(5); trial court cannot later direct deposit of suit amount at summons for judgment stage. (!) (ii) Stage under Rule 3(6) allows only furnishing security, not payment of suit amount. (!)

Respondent supported the order: Even after unconditional leave under Rule 3(5), court empowered under Order 37 at summons for judgment to direct deposit, especially in summary suits, to prevent frustration of proceedings if no triable issue. (!) (!) (!)

Relevant Provisions: Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC allows defendant, within 10 days of summons for judgment, to apply for leave to defend by disclosing sufficient facts; leave granted unconditionally or on just terms, not refused unless no substantial defense or frivolous; if part amount admitted due, must deposit it. (!) (!) (!) Rule 3(6): At hearing, if leave granted for whole/part claim, court may direct security within fixed time; failure entitles plaintiff to judgment forthwith. (!) (!) (!)

Court's Analysis and Reasoning: Trial court granted unconditional leave after considering merits, unchallenged by plaintiff. Thereafter, under Rule 3(6)(b), court may direct security if leave permitted, but not deposit of entire suit amount (here, promissory notes value) as "security." Word "security" in restricted sense secures suit amount payment, not equates to full deposit, else frustrates unconditional leave and Rule 3(6) purpose. Court cannot revisit leave stage; post-leave, only security direction permissible, not full payment disguised as security. (!) (!)

Trial court erred directing deposit of full Rs. 2,50,000 as security. (!)

Decision: Petition allowed partly; impugned order modified—petitioner to furnish security to trial court's satisfaction for Rs. 2,50,000; deposit direction set aside. No costs. (!)