RSA No.1444 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1444 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:19.05.2010 M/s Soni Tex Mechanicals Engineer Works, .... appellant Versus Surinder Mohan Bhardwaj .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Dinesh Ghai,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): Challenge in this appeal is to a money decree passed against the appellant. Order 41 Rule 1(3)CPC envisages that along with the appeal, appellant shall deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the court may think fit. In the present case, while filing this appeal, the aforesaid provisions were not complied with. Neither any application was filed seeking exemption thereof. This court vide order dated 05.04.2010 gave an opportunity to the appellant to comply with the aforesaid provisions. However, neither the disputed amount has been deposited nor any security has been furnished in terms of the aforesaid provisions. There is no dispute that Regular Second Appeal before this Court under Section 100 CPC can be filed only as per the procedure prescribed under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC according to which apart from other requirements, in an appeal against a decree for payment of money, RSA No.1444 of 2010(O & M) 2 the appellant is under obligation to deposit the disputed amount or furnish such security in respect, thereof, as the court may think fit. In the absence of same, there is no properly constituted appeal before this Court. In spite of the opportunity granted, appellant has admittedly failed to do the needful. In this view of the matter, I have no other alternative but to dismiss this appeal as no properly constituted appeal has been presented before this Court. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 19.05.2010 neenu