IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 Dharmender ...Appellant Versus M/s Haryana Steel Mongers (P) Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr.Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present letters patent appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Sing Judge in CWP-8634-2019, by which, the prayer of the appellant raised against the order passed by the Commercial Court, dated 28.02.2017, that the security amount of Rs.1.25 crores with one surety in the like amount be furnished while granting leave to defend has been partly interfered with, on the ground that the same is perverse.

2. The learned Single Judge, after considering all the facts and the relevant provisions, came to the conclusion that the condition imposed of providing security and one surety to the principal amount of Rs.64,72,056/- while granting leave to defend does not suffer from any infirmity either on facts or on law, but reduced the amount of providing security from Rs.1.25 crores to the principal amount of Rs.64,72,056/-.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that no condition could have been imposed while granting the leave to defend especially when no material evidence has come on record to show that the liability exists qua the appellant to pay the said amount as has been claimed by the respondent-plaintiff. Learned senior counsel submits that till the evidence is led and the allegations by the plaintiff are proved, putting the condition upon the appellant-defendant to give the guarantee is causing prejudice to him and the same is also contrary to the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Neebha Kapoor vs. Jayantilal Khandwala and others, (2008) 3 SCC 770 as well as to the settled principle of law settled in Sudin Dilip Talaulikar vs. Polycap Wires Private Limited and others, (2019) 7 SCC 577

4. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

5. The argument has been raised by the learned senior counsel that the leave to defend should have been granted unconditionally in the facts and circumstances of the present case, especially when the Commercial Court, while passing the order dated 28.02.2017 did not record the fact that even prima facie liability exists of the appellant-defendant. Learned senior counsel further submit that once, the criteria has been fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as to under what circumstances the conditions can be imposed while deciding Sudin Dilip Talaulikar’s case (supra), the condition imposed upon the appellant of giving the security to the amount claimed by the respondent-plaintiff is incorrect.

6. The said argument needs to be looked into while keeping in view the order passed by the Commercial Court as well as the settled principle of law which is being relied upon. In paragraph 10 of the order passed by the Commercial Court, dated 28.02.2017, the reason given to grant the leave to defend is that though the bills have been placed on record, but the bills do not bear the signatures and they are computer generated. The Commercial Court held that said bills are yet to be proved during the evidence and as the trivial issue exists between the party whether the goods were supplied or not, the leave to defend was granted but the same was with the condition that the appellant, who is the defendant before the Commercial Court, will furnish the security along with one surety for Rs.1.25 crores, which is being claimed by the respondent-plaintiff. The said condition is only to secure the interest of the plaintiff which cannot be treated as arbitrary or illegal.

7. It may be noticed that had the appellant been directed to deposit the claime