: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO.515 OF 2007 SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO.515 OF 2007 SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO.515 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1273 OF 2006 SUMMARY SUIT NO.1273 OF 2006 SUMMARY SUIT NO.1273 OF 2006 UTI Bank Ltd. .. Plaintiffs. Versus M.S.Ramrao & Anr. .. Defendants. Mr.A.R.Bamne for plaintiffs. Mr.G.V.Bhagwat i/b.M/s.Divekar & Co. for defendant No.1. Mr.Kharawala i/b.R.K.Associates for defendant No.2. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 14th November, 2008. DATE : 14th November, 2008. DATE : 14th November, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. The plaintiffs bank had advanced loan to defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 had stood as a guarantor. The present summons for judgement is taken out against the guarantor on account of his status as a guarantor. : 2 : 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both the sides. Learned Advocate for defendant No.2 submitted that the defendant No.2 stood as a guarantor purely to oblige defendant No.1. 3. I have perused the affidavit-in-reply and no substantive defence is put up by defendant No.2. In the normal course, defendant No.2 could have been asked to deposit an amount, practically equivalent to bank’s claim. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances that defendant No.2 was persuaded by defendant NO.1 to stand as a guarantor with appropriate assurances, it appears that defendant No.2 is a victim of the circumstances. At the same time, it cannot so happen that defendant No.2 should be permitted to defend the suit in an unconditional manner. 4. While passing the order as against the defendant No.1 in summons for judgement taken out against defendant No.1, the court has directed that defendant No.1 should deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- to defend the suit. The bank’s principal claim is Rs.1,04,000/-. Keeping this in view, I am inclined to observe that at this stage, the bank should be covered at least for principal amount and, : 3 : therefore, it would be proper if defendant No.2-guarantor without any substantive defence put up by him is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- to enable him to defend the suit. 5. In the course of arguments, learned Advocate for defendant No.2 had indicated that defendant No.2 be put to terms with reference to a nominal amount as he is a retired person. I am not inclined to accept this submission. I have come to the conclusion that if an amount of Rs.30,000/- is directed to be deposited by the defendant No.2, it would meet the ends of justice. Hence the order :- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R i) Upon defendant No.2 depositing a sum of Rs.30,000/- in this court on or before 6.1.2009, he is permitted to defend the suit. ii) Defendant No.2 to file written statement on or before 12.1.2009 after depositing the amount. : 4 : iii) After defendant No.2 deposits the aforesaid amount of Rs.30,000/-, the Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to invest the amount in any nationalised bank in the fixed deposit, initially for a period of one year and, thereafter, continue to renew the same from time to time till further orders from this court. 6. Suit set down for directions on 14.1.2009. Summons for judgement stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.)