C.R. No.2037 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.2037 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9.7.2008 Rajinder and another .....Petitioners Vs. Jasmer and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. S.K.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The sole grievance raised in the instant petition is that while accepting the petitioners' prayer and modifying the order passed by the trial Court, the Additional District Judge, Ambala, directed petitioner no.1 to furnish a bank guarantee of 3/5 share of the total amount withdrawn by him in respect of the Fixed Deposit receipts. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the appellate Court lost sight of the fact that the total amount is only Rs.74,000/- plus interest. Furnishing a bank guarantee,therefore, would, in essence, involve expenditure that would involve payment of almost the entire amount, to the bank as guarantee charges if the case remains pending for a few more years. It is, therefore, prayed that the order be modified and instead of a bank guarantee, some other alternative equitable arrangement be made. Counsel for the respondents, however, states that the petitioners should be directed to furnish a bank guarantee, as their interest could only C.R. No.2037 of 2008 2 be protected by a bank guarantee. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The direction to furnish a bank guarantee was apparently passed, without taking into consideration that a bank furnishing a guarantee imposes bank guarantee charges. The amount in dispute is Rs.74,000/-. Calling upon the petitioners to furnish a bank guarantee for 3/5 share of the aforementioned amount, would, in essence, entail payment of an amount, almost equal to the amount that the petitioners would receive, as the dispute is not likely to be decided soon. In this view of the matter, the order dated 3.1.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, is modified to the extent that the petitioners would file an undertaking before the trial Court, binding themselves that in the eventuality of an order/decree being passed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, they would make good any amount found payable to them, within a month of the passing of such order/decree. The petitioners would also furnish adequate surety/security to the satisfaction of the trial Court. With the aforementioned modification in the order dated 3.1.2008, the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit, preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing. 9.7.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE