IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CM(M) 342/2007 # Shri Manmohan Singh ........ Appellants ! through: Mr.Ashwani K. Matta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kapil Arora, Advocate. VERSUS $ Shri Pankaj Kalia ........ Respondents ^ through: Mr.M.Hussain, Advocate % DATE OF DECISION: 9.1.2008 CORAM: * Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL) 1. Heard. Petitioner impleaded as a defendant in a suit filed by the resspondent is aggrieved by the condition imposed requiring petitioner to deposit Rs.3 lacs in court or file a bank guarantee in said sum or deposit FDR in said sum as a condition precedent for defending the suit. 2. On merits, leave to defend has been granted to the petitioner. 3. Respondent's suit under Order 37 of the Code of Page 1 of 4 Civil Procedure stated that petitioner had borrowed Rs.4 lacs from the respondent with interest @ 18% p.a. and had executed a promissory note as consideration for return of the loan. The date of the transaction is stated to be 18.8.2004. It was stated that the petitioner failed to honour the commitment to pay under the promissory note and hence the suit. 4. Seeking leave to defend, petitioner stated that the respondent was appointed by it to the post of Company Secretary and was put in charge of its project 'Kings Valley'. It was stated that the project did not materialize and for said reason services of the respondent were discontinued. It was stated that when working for the project in question respondent got familiar with the hand writing and signatures of the petitioner and that the promissory note was a forged document. Receipt of any loan was denied. It was also pleaded that the respondent had committed acts of forgery and cheating and a complaint was made to the police. It was pleaded in the application seeking leave to defend that the salary of the respondent was Rs.6500/- per month. It was pleaded that there was no occasion for the employer to take any loan from the employee. 5. In response, respondent admitted having worked with the petitioner but stated that he worked as a consultant Page 2 of 4 and not as an employee. 6. Learned Trial Judge held that since the signatures on the promissory note were disputed and there was no independent proof in respect of the stated loan, case was made out to grant leave to defend to the petitioner. 7. What stands out before me is the fact that it is not the case of the respondent that the loan in question advanced by a cheque. In fact the plaint is completely silent as to how and in what manner i.e. whether in cash or by cheque, the loan in question was advanced. 8. In my opinion, having prima facie found in favour of the petitioner that case was made out to grant leave to defend it required reasons to be stated as to why a condition was being put while granting leave to defend. 9. In the impugned order, no reasons have been recorded whatsoever justifying imposition of the condition while granting leave to defend. 10. I dispose of the petition setting aside the impugned order in so far it imposes a condition requiring petitioner to either deposit or furnish bank guarantee or furnish a fixed deposit receipt in sum of Rs.3 lacs. Meaning thereby, petitioner would be entitled to unconditional leave to defend. 11. No costs. Page 3 of 4 12. Copy of this order be supplied dasti to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges. January 09, 2008 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. vg Page 4 of 4