C.R. No. 3361 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3361 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.5.2010 ... Beant Singh ................Petitioner vs. Ashok Kumar .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Shiv Raj Angi, Advocate for the petitioner ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition against the order dated 21.4.2010 (Annexure P-3) vide which the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, asked the defendant to furnish surety while granting leave to defend in a recovery suit under Order 37 Rule 5 CPC. Briefly stated, Ashok Kumar filed a suit for recovery under Order 37 CPC for Rs.2,04,000/- alongwith interest on the basis of pronote and receipt. The defendant appeared and applied for grant of leave to defend under Order 37 Rule 5 CPC, which was allowed subject to furnishing of surety to the tune of Rs.2.50 lacs. The said order has been challenged by filing the present revision petition. C.R. No. 3361 of 2010 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has observed that defendant has raised the triable issue. So, in these circumstances, unconditional leave to defend should have been granted by the trial Court. To support this contention, he has relied upon the authority reported as Defiance Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jay Arts 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 493 Supreme Court. I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission, In the ruling relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, in clause (4), it has been mentioned that in cases where the Court entertains a genuine doubt on the question as to whether the defence is genuine or sham, or whether it raises a triable issue or not, the Court may impose conditions in granting leave to defend. The only condition imposed is to furnish the surety. So, the trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction. No ground for interference is made out. Consequently, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 20.5.2010 Judge chugh