CRP 435/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. KR Surana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. I have also heard the learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 to 8. The petitioners, who are the appellants in Title Appeal No.52/2011 has filed thi s petition challenging the order dated 14th September, 2011 passed by the learne d Civil Judge, Dhubri dismissing the appeal for non furnishing the adequate secu rity in terms of the order dated 19th May, 2011 passed by the learned District J udge, Dhubri, while admitting the appeal directing the appellants to pay the sec urity of Rs.1,60,000/-, i.e. the decreetal amount. The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8th April, 2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dhubri in Title Suit No.181/2006 preferred Title Appeal No.52/2011, which was initially taken up by the learned District Ju dge because of the absence of the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri and vide order dat ed 19th May, 2011 while admitting the appeal directed furnishing the security to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- on the basis of the application filed by the present respondent No.1. On 14th September, 2011, when the case was taken up by the lea rned Civil Judge, the petitioners furnished the security bond alongwith the sale deed, which, however, was not accepted on the ground that the name of the perso n, who executed the sale deed was not recorded in the revenue record. By the sa id order dated 14th September, 2011, the appeal was consequently dismissed under Order 41 Rule 10 CPC because of non-furnishing of the adequate security, as dir ected. Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Civil Ju dge being not satisfied with the adequacy of the security furnished ought to hav e given further opportunity to furnish adequate security before dismissing the a ppeal, which having not been done, the impugned order dated 14th September, 2011 needs to be interfered with, with a further direction to the learned Court belo w to give an opportunity to furnish the adequate security. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that since the admission of the appeal vide order date d 19th May, 2011 was conditional, i.e. on furnishing the adequate security as re quired under Order 41 Rule 10 CPC, the learned Civil Judge has rightly passed th e order dated 14th September, 2011 dismissing the appeal due to non furnishing t he adequate security. It appears that while admitting the appeal vide order dated 19th May, 2011, dire ction was issued under Order 41 Rule 10 CPC to furnish the security to the satis faction of the learned Court below. The petitioners consequently submitted the s ecurity bond alongwith the sale deed, which, however, has not been accepted by t he learned Court below on the ground that the name of the person, who executed t he sale deed, has not been mutated in the revenue record. The learned Civil Judg e consequently by the aforesaid order dated 19th May, 2011 dismissed the appeal. The security, which was given to the petitioners having not been found to be ade quate, the learned Civil Judge ought to have given a further opportunity to the petitioners to furnish adequate security to his satisfaction, which having not b een done, the impugned order dated 14th September, 2011 needs to be interfered w ith. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14th September, 2011 is set aside. The petitioner is given a last opportunity to furnish the adequate security to t he satisfaction of the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri within a period of 15(fifteen ) days from today. The revision petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No costs.