IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3932 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 15, 2010 Gurbachan Singh. …Petitioner Versus Satpal …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raveesh Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit under Order 37 CPC, for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs as principal amount and Rs. One lac as interest thereupon at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the advancement of the loan till the filing of the suit) against the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner – defendant applied for the leave to defend. The learned Trial Court granted the leave subject “to furnishing of security by defendant in sum of Rs. 2 lac with one surety in like amount.” The defendant-petitioner is in revision against it. The petition deserves allowance in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in 2002(2) S.L.J. 1038 – State Bank of Saurashtra vs. M/s Ashit Shipping Services C.R.No. 3932 of 2009 (P) Ltd and another. That judicial pronouncement categorically held that if the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits, he would be entitled to unconditional leave to defend. Likewise, if a defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence, although not a positively good defence, he too is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. No law to the contrary was cited on behalf of the respondent – plaintiff before this Court. However, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent has an apprehension, that the defendant-petitioner may not alienate his agricultural holding and defeat the execution of the decree, if any ultimately comes to be granted. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court in State Bank of Saurashtra’s case (supra), this petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand invalidated. In order to allay the apprehension in the mind of the respondent-plaintiff, it is ordered that if defendant- petitioner is inclined to alienate the agricultural holding owned by him, he shall get an averment regarding pendency of this suit inserted therein. Disposed of accordingly. March 15, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2