1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4548 of 2011 Date of Decision: 28.7.2011 *** Ashok Kumar Dahra. .. Petitioner Vs. Kashmiri Lal Goyal .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioner-defendant is aggrieved with order dated 31.5.2011 by which, though he has been granted permission to defend the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for recovery, but with the condition to furnish FDR in the shape of Rs.3 lacs. Heard. According to the learned counsel the amount, as ordered, to be furnished as security in the shape of FDR is more than the decreetal amount and the petitioner is ready to furnish part of the amount by way of bank guarantee and for remaining he shall furnish security/ surety. Considering the fact that the imposition of such a direction is to secure the interest of the plaintiff, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be in the interest of justice if, instead of the FDR, the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee of Rs.1 lac and for remaining amount the petitioner shall furnish adequate surety/ security to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, with the undertaking to realize the amount thereof immediately to the plaintiff, in case the plaintiff is succeeded in the suit. Ordered accordingly. The instant petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite 2 party. If respondent is are summoned to contest this litigation, he will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if he feel dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 28, 2011 Jiten