i.- ,,'-,r .D t T9* IN THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI + c.R.P. 73t20LI RICHA GLOBAL EXPORTS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Advocate versus PRINT FAB INDIA PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN ORDER o 18.05.2011 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is a defendant in a suit for recovery of { 18,58,1281- filed against it by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XXXVII CPC. The . petitioner-defendant had filed an application for leave to defend and the same has been allowed by the tlial Court vide order dated 19tl'March,20II and leave to defend has been granted to the petitioner-defendant but subject to its furnishing bank guarantee for the suit amount. The petitioner is aggrieved only'with the condition imposed by the trial Court while granting leave to defend to it. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, relying upon two judgments of Supreme Court reported as 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 1.91 and 1976 (4) SCC 687 that unconditional leave to defend should have been granted by the trial Court. The respondent - plaintiff had frled the suit for recovery of money which was lying outstanding against the petitioner - defendant as per the statement of account maintained by the respondent - plaintiff. The petitioner - defendant in its leave to defend application claim that suit under Order XXXVII CPC was not maintainable and further that it was c.R.P.7312011 page I of2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ()/ I maintaining a running account of the respondent - plaintiff in respect of the transaction between the parties and as per its account books a sum of { 6,38,700.39 was payable to it by the respondent - plaintiff and in a joint meeting held on I4-I2-07 it was agreed after adjusting some amounts a sum of { 6,38,700.39 would be paid to the petitioner - defendant by the respondent - plaintiff but thereafter nothing was paid by the respondent - plaintiff and so the petitioner - defendant was reserving its right to claim the said money from the respondent - plaintiff by way of a separate suit. I have perused the order of the trial Court giving conditional leave to defend to the petitioner - defendant. There is no material irregularity in the impugned order of the trial Court granting conditional petitioner-defendant. This revision petition is dismissed. MAY L8,2011/pg c.R.P.7312011 oage2 ofZ .F