Civil Revision No. 6526 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6526 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.5.2011 *** Maliat Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Harpreet Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioner is being sued by respondent-plaintiff in a suit for recovery of Rs.60,000/- which he claimed on the basis of receipt and pronote alleged to have been executed by former in his favour. The petitioner appeared before the Court and, inter alia, took the plea that he never borrowed the loan from the plaintiff and sought leave to defend. Vide order dated 30.7.2009 the Court below granted leave to defend but on the condition of his furnishing bank guarantee equivalent to the suit amount i.e. Rs.60,000/-. Dis-satisfied with the same defendant has filed the present revision petition. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the Court below has come to the conclusion that defendant has a good case of defence of the claim on merit, the leave so granted must be un-conditional. There is considerable force in the submission of learned counsel. The impugned order reveals that from the pleas taken by the defendant the Court Civil Revision No. 6526 of 2009 2 came to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to make out a good case for granting leave to defend his case in favour of the defendant and the same are to be substantiated by way of evidence. In this view of the matter the condition of furnishing bank guarantee seems to be harsh one. In the circumstances, the present revision is partly allowed and instead of bank guarantee the petitioner shall furnish personal surety bond to the tune of the suit amount, thereby giving an undertaking to indemnify the plaintiff in case he is not succeeded in his defence. Disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 20, 2011 Jiten