IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 547 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.09.2010 Ram Singh Petitioner. Versus Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 23.06.2008 whereby the plaintiff has been directed to furnish Bank Guarantee to the extent of Rs.9,27,500/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaint was field by Ram Singh praying that the defendants be restrained from collecting Purchee fees from the various truck operators who were members of the H.P.Ex-servicemen Truck Operators Union and also be restrained from using Jeep No. HP-24-4471. Various interim orders were passed from time to time. But finally the entire matter was settled by an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court passed in FAO 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 No.441 of 2007 in which following directions were issued:- (a) That the defendant will be allowed the operation of the bank account which will be monitored by the trial Court and for which purpose the defendant shall submit in the court an account of the money received/utilized. This account shall be submitted every 15 days. The money will be utilized for the purpose of the Union and the defendant will not indulge in wasteful expenditure. (b) That defendant will be allowed to use the vehicle which will also be monitored by the trial Court and for which purpose the defendant will submit a report every month showing the purpose and manner for which the vehicle was utilized and the manner of its utilization. 3. Thereafter, an application was filed by the defendants No. 1 and 2 that since Ram Singh plaintiff had collected an amount of Rs.9,27,500/- during the period 1.10.2007 to 17.12.2007 as Purchee fees, he be directed to deposit the same. The learned trial Court allowed the application by directing the respondent to furnish bank guarantee to the extent of Rs.9,27,500/- in the following terms:- 3 “the interest of fair play and justice requires that when by way of the arrangement worked out by the Hon’ble High Court, the applicants/defendants has been given the liberty to utilize the assets subject to their being monitored by this Court and to collect the Parchi Fee, I, think that, also, the plaintiff/non-applicant also furnish bank guarantee to the extent of Rs.9,27,500/- before this Court within two weeks so as to afford sufficient solvent security to the realization of any decretal amount which may come to be adjudged in favour of the defendant/applicant, in case, it is ultimately decreed that the amount to collected was done unauthorisedly by the plaintiff/non-applicant. Besides it also shall obviate multiplicity of litigation. Order accordingly. The application stands disposed of.” 4. I am constrained to observe that the order passed by the learned trial Court is totally illegal. A party can be directed to furnish security only when there is a prayer that the suit should be decreed against that party. In the present case, the suit was filed by the petitioner. No counter claim was filed by the defendant against him. In the absence of any counter claim the defendant could not make a prayer that the plaintiff should either be asked to deposit the amount 4 collected by him or should be asked to furnish bank guarantee for the amount so collected by him. Therefore, the order in question dated 23.6.2008 being illegal is set-aside. It is, however, made clear that this order will not affect any other remedy which may be available to the defendants in accordance with law. No costs. 21st September, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™