CR No.1355 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.1355 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 26.11.2009 **** M/s. M.G. Industries . . . . Petitioner VS. M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of 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? **** Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gajinder Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Mani Kant, Advocate for the respondents **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, whereby, an application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC moved by the petitioner-plaintiff to grant ad interim injunction to restrain the respondent-Company from encashing the Bank guarantee, has been dismissed and the said order has been upheld by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide the impugned order dated 3rd March, 2009. CR No.1355 of 2009 - 2 - (2). Both the Courts below have declined injunction and have permitted the respondent-Company to encash the bank guarantee dated 5th May, 2008 furnished by the Punjab and Sind Bank on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff. (3). After arguing the case at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner states that if the respondent No.1-Company furnishes adequate surety to the satisfaction of the Civil Court, the petitioner-Company shall have no objection against encashment of the bank guarantee. The surety may comprise the charge on some immoveable property located even outside the State of Haryana. (4). Counsel for the respondent No.1 has also been heard at some length. He could give no satisfactory explanation that in case the petitioner succeeds in the Civil Suit and obtains a declaration to the effect that the respondent-company is not entitled to encash the bank guarantee, why there should not be some surety for the effective enforcement of such a decree. (5). Consequently, the revision petition is disposed of with a direction that on furnishing adequate surety to the satisfaction of the Civil Court, respondent No.1-Company shall be entitled to execute the bank guarantee in question, however, subject to the final outcome of the Civil Suit. (6). As soon as respondent No.1 furnishes surety to the satisfaction of the Civil Court, there shall be a direction to the respondent No.2/Bank to permit respondent No.1 to encash the bank guarantee within one week. CR No.1355 of 2009 - 3 - (7). Having regard to the nature of the controversy, the Civil Court is directed to make an endeavour to decide the Civil Suit as early as possible and preferably within 2 years. (8). Disposed of. (9). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 26.11.2009 vishal shonkar