IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 217 of 2011 Decided on: 24.08.2011 Tigaksha Mettalics Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner. Versus Saiket Sen …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) is directed against the order dated 18.04.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. VII, Shimla, whereby the defendant has been directed to furnish security in the sum of ` 4,00,000/- and has also been directed to furnish the documents mentioned in the application under Order 11 Rule 12, 14 and 15 CPC. 2. The grievance of the petitioner-defendant is that the reply filed by it to these applications has not been considered. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2:- The learned trial Court did not consider the replies on the ground that the defence of the petitioner-defendant had been struck off. 3. It would be pertinent to mention that the order striking off the defence has been already set aside by this court vide judgment dated 09.05.2011 passed in CMPMO No. 97 of 2011. Therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside and the learned trial Court must decide both the applications on merits. Accordingly, the order dated 18.04.2011 is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to again decide these applications on merits. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the rival applications and the learned trial Court shall decide the same uninfluenced by this order. 4. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge August 24, 2011 (rajni)