IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2046 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 25.04.2008 Gurbachan Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate vs. Dalbara Singh ....Respondent(s) through Mr.HPS Ghumman, Advocate *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.3.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha whereby while granting leave to defend to the petitioner-defendant in a suit for recovery based upon a promissory note, he has been directed to furnish surety bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac within a period of one month. The respondent-plaintiff and the petitioner-defendant are real brothers. The respondent has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.77,000/- under Order 37 CPC alleging that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from him and executed a pronote and receipt dated 7.12.2002 to that effect and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1.56% per month. The petitioner sought leave to defend the above-stated suit alleging inter alia that the pronote and receipt are a result of fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration as at that time he was allegedly C.R. No.2046 of 2007 -2- hospitalized in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala due to injuries suffered in an accident. The respondent-plaintiff, who is his elder brother used to look- after him and due to the faith inter se between the parties being brothers, the petitioner's signatures were obtained on a blank pronote and receipt. The learned trial Court after observing that the petitioner has raised triable issue and his allegations cannot be proved without evidence, has granted him leave to defend the suit subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.1 lac within a period of one month. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. He relies upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s.Mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers vs. M/s.Basic Equipment Corporation, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 577 and Santosh Kumar vs. Bhai Mool Singh, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 321. While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 19.4.2007, this Court stayed operation of the impugned order requiring the petitioner to furnish surety bonds. As as abundant precaution, this Court, however, also stayed alienation. In other words, while the petitioner was not required to furnish any surety bond he was restrained from alienating his land so that in case the suit is decreed, no pre-judice is caused to the respondent-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Having regard to all the attending circumstances and the fact that the suit is based upon a pronote as well as receipt which are duly signed and the petitioner is apparently not an illiterate person, in my considered view, the interest of the respondent-plaintiff requires some protection. While allowing this revision petition partly, the impugned order C.R. No.2046 of 2007 -3- dated 1.3.2007 is modified to the extent that while the petitioner will not be required to furnish any surety bond, the ad interim order dated 19.4.2007 restraining him from alienating his property shall continue to operate till the suit is decided and in case the respondent's suit succeeds , there shall remain a charge on the agricultural land of the petitioner for the purpose of satisfaction of the said decree. However, during the pendency of the suit, if the petitioner for some bonafide reasons is required to alienate a part of the properties, he may seek prior permission of the learned trial Court for that purpose. Disposed of. April 25, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE