C.R. No. 6435 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 26043-CII of 2009 and CR No. 6435 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.11.2009 Makhan Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Inder Jeet ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 26043-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 6435 of 2009 The defendant-petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 7.9.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by him for leave to defend was allowed with the condition that he shall furnish a security in cash or by immovable property to the extent of the principal amount, i.e. Rs.46,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should have been granted unconditional leave to defend. He C.R. No. 6435 of 2009 -2- has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Mechalec Engineers & Manufacturers v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, AIR 1977 SC 577 in support of his submission. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the case law cited by him. In this case, the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt, wherein, the defendant- petitioner had taken a stand that he had neither borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor executed any pronote and receipt. According to the defendant-petitioner, he used to sell his agricultural produce on the shop of the plaintiff and in lieu of settling the account the plaintiff used to obtain his signatures on some blank and printed papers which might have been used for preparing false pronote and receipt. This has been contested by the plaintiff with the averments that pronote and receipt were duly executed in the presence of the witnesses. The trial court while adjudicating the application for leave to defend filed by the defendant-petitioner had recorded as under:- “In the case in hand, applicant-defendant has pleaded that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor executed any pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff and the alleged pronote and receipt are forged documents. The facts disclosed by the defendant may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend as during trial, he may be able to establish a defence to plaintiff's claim. 7. In view of the above discussion, application in C.R. No. 6435 of 2009 -3- hand is allowed and leave to defend is hereby granted to the applicant-defendant with the condition that he shall furnish a security in cash or by immovable property to the extent to the principal amount i.e. Rs.46,000/-.” The signatures on pronote and receipt are not denied in absolute terms by the defendant-petitioner whereas his plea is that they might be result of procuring false pronote and receipt as signatures used to be obtained on some blank and printed documents. The defence taken by the defendant-petitioner is to be established by leading evidence and he has been asked to furnish security either in cash or by immovable property only in respect of the principal amount, i.e. Rs.46,000/-. The order impugned herein, thus, appears to be just and equitable. The reliance of the learned counsel on the judgment in M/s. Mechalec Engineers & Manufacturer's case (supra) is of no help as it does not advance the case of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the above, no ground to exercise its jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. November 6, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE