Civil Revision No.1186 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1186 of 2009 Date of Decision:04.03.2009 Jaswant Singh ....petitioner Versus Navjeet Sharma .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.M.S.Rai,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. By way of this revision petition, the defendant has challenged the order dated 10.12.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.)Jalalabad whereby in a suit filed under Order 37 CPC, the petitioner has been granted leave to defend subject to furnishing of surety equal to the suit amount. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that since the plaintiff has failed to comply with the Order 37 Rule 4 of the CPC, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The contention raised by the petitioner is misconceived. Order 37 Rule 4 provides that if the defendant enters appearance the plaintiff shall thereafter serve on the defendant a summons for judgment within 10 days from the date of service and thereafter the court may grant leave to defend to the defendant on such terms as may appear to the court to be just. In the present case, the plaintiff has suffered a statement that leave to defend be granted to the defendant and in view thereof it cannot be said that any illegality has been Civil Revision No.1186 of 2009 2 caused by the trial Court on account of the fact that plaintiff has not served on the defendant summons for judgment as provided under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC. Even otherwise, the leave to defend can be granted by the court unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the court to be just. In the present case, the defendant-petitioner has been asked to furnish security to an amount equal to the amount in dispute. Thus, I find that the condition imposed by the trial Court is just and appropriate. No interference is called for. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 04.03.2009 neenu