Civil Revision No. 7709 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7709 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.1.2010 M/s Rexor India Ltd. .. Petitioner v. M/s Henkelcac Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 10.11.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby while granting leave to defend in a suit filed by the respondent, under Order 37 CPC, the petitioner has been directed to furnish the bank guarantee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the legal notice issued, the respondent had mentioned that notice had been issued on behalf of M/s Amakan Overseas Pvt. Ltd. as well, whereas that company has not been impleaded a party in the suit filed. He further submitted that even the respondent had not prayed for a direction to the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee as a condition precedent for leave to defend. Still further, the submission is that the material supplied to the petitioner by the respondent was defective and on that account, there was bonafide dispute about the amount due against the petitioner and the petitioner once granted leave to defend, there was no question of issuance of any direction for furnishing of bank guarantee. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. As far as impleading or non-impleading of a party is concerned, the effect thereof will be seen by the learned court below at the time of decision of the suit. This has no relation with furnishing or non-furnishing of bank guarantee at the time of grant of opportunity to defend the suit. Nothing has been referred to by the petitioner to substantiate the plea that the material supplied by the respondent was defective as during the regular course of business, the Civil Revision No. 7709 of 2009 [2] material was received and the payments were being made. As far as the argument regarding direction by the court for furnishing of bank guarantee by the petitioner, even though not prayed for by the respondent, is concerned, in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is the satisfaction of the court which could grant permission to defend the suit unconditionally or by such terms as may appear to the court to be just. The court in the present case has exercised that discretion, which on the basis of material referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be irrelevant. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 20.1.2010 mk