R.S.A. No.824 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.824 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 9.3.2009 M/s Sant Feed Industries & another ....Appellants Versus Manohar Lal ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate for the appellants. MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.3011-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the case is preponed to today. C.M.No.2355-CII of 2009 Delay of 3 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No.824 of 2009 The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants, who were defendants, moved an application for leave to defend within the stipulated period and the same was allowed subject to their furnishing adequate security. The appellants failed to furnish the same within the time frame granted by the learned trial Court leaving the Court with no other option but to proceed with the case by treating the application for leave to defend R.S.A. No.824 of 2009 (O&M) -2- as withdrawn. The suit was ultimately decreed as the evidence produced before the learned trial Court pointed to the validity of the pronote. In appeal, the findings of the learned trial Court were affirmed. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the aforesaid findings to contend that the appellants were precluded from furnishing the security pursuant to the orders passed on the application for leave to defend as the appellant No.2 was residing abroad. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the plea as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is totally misplaced. The suit was concededly filed under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which an application for leave to defend was moved. The said application was allowed subject to furnishing of security which was not deposited by the appellants. The reason given for not depositing the security is that the appellant No.2 was residing abroad. I am afraid such an excuse cannot be accepted at this belated stage. If the appellant No.2 was residing abroad, it was for him to make some arrangement to prosecute the case effectively, which was not done. The learned trial Court even otherwise on the basis of evidence before it concluded regarding the validity of the pronote and its execution by the appellants. The said findings were affirmed by the first Appellate Court. In this view of the matter, when pure questions of fact have been determined by the Courts below and no substantial question of R.S.A. No.824 of 2009 (O&M) -3- law arises for the determination of this Court, the appeal being totally devoid of any merit is dismissed. 9.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss