Civil Revision No.6869 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6869 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.9.2011 Baldev Singh ...Petitioner Versus Ravinder Kumar ...Respondent and other connected petition being Civil Revision No.6876 of 2010. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.6869 and 6876 of 2010 as it is stated that facts and law involved in both the petitions are identical. However, facts have been taken from Civil Revision No.6869 of 2010. The defendant-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for modification of order dated 6.9.2010 passed by the Trial Court whereby application filed by him seeking leave to defend has been allowed on furnishing security to the extent of half amount of the pronote in question with one surety. Briefly the facts may be noticed. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of ` 6,16,000/- (` 4 lacs as principal and ` 2,16,000/- as interest @ ` 1.50 Ps. Per hundred per month from the date of execution of pronote dated 5.5.2006). The Application dated 29.8.2009 had been filed Civil Revision No.6869 of 2010 -2- **** by the defendant-petitioner seeking leave to defend. Various pleas like defendant did not borrow any amount; there is relationship of commission agent and customer between the plaintiff and defendant and plaintiff had fabricated the alleged pronote and receipt, have been taken. The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 6.9.2010 granted leave to defend the suit on furnishing security to the extent of half the amount of the pronote in question with one surety. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court while issuing notice of motion on 25.10.2010 had ordered that proceedings in the suit may go on without insistence on furnishing of security. He further submitted that suit had progressed thereafter. According to him after filing reply, issues have been framed and the evidence of the plaintiff is being recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that in view of the fact that suit is at advanced stage, order dated 25.10.2010 may be made absolute. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the trial Court had directed the petitioner to furnish security with surety for half of the amount of pronote and there was no illegality in the said order, He, however, submitted that the trial Court may be directed to expedite the trial within time bound frame. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the revision petitions are disposed of by making interim order dated 25.10.2010 as absolute and by directing the Trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 22, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Civil Revision No.6869 of 2010 -3- **** Pka Judge