IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5625 of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.9.2011 Amarjit Singh. ....... Petitioner. Versus Harpreet Singh Grover (Shinu). ...... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK .... Present: Shri A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J. This is a revision petition brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Amarjit Singh-defendant questioning the legality of the order dated 11.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda directing him to furnish surety to the tune of Rs.one lakh. Harpreet Singh Grover, respondent had brought a suit against the petitioner under the provisions of Order 37 of the C.P.C. C.R. No. 5625 of 2011 -2- .... for recovery of Rs.9,92,000/-. The petitioner applied for leave to defend and vide order dated 11.8.20111, leave to defend has been granted subject to the petitioner furnishing surety in a sum of Rs.one lakh. The only submission made before me by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order is non-speaking. He could not take any other exception to the impugned order. The order grants leave to defend to the petitioner. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner in his application for leave to defend the suit has been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show me any provision of the C.P.C. under which the demand of surety in a sum of Rs.one lakh as a condition for grant of leave to defend in a suit brought for recovery of Rs.9,92,000/- is in any way illegal. For these reasons, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by learned trial court. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed. September 15,2011 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) “SCM” JUDGE