Civil Revision No.6650 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6650 of 2006 Date of Decision:31.07.2009 Nikka Singh .....Petitioner versus Manjinder Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Brar, Advocate, for the respondent. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the grievance of the defendant-petitioner is against the order dated 21.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dabwali, whereby he was asked to furnish a bank guarantee as a condition precedent for filing defence in the suit filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of pronote and receipt by the plaintiff-respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No.5483 of 2005 (Sultan Singh Versus Rajinder Kumar) decided on 14.11.2006 and submitted that instead of bank guarantee, the petitioner should be permitted to furnish security while granting leave to defend by the trial Court. He further submitted that this Court while issuing notice of motion on 14.12.2006 had permitted the Civil Revision No.6650 of 2006 2 petitioner to furnish surety of the amount in dispute of some immovable property and in compliance with the said order, the petitioner had already furnished surety bond in respect of immovable property and the same has been accepted by the trial Court. A certified copy of the order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the trial Court in pursuance to the order dated 14.12.2006 accepting the surety bond furnished by the petitioner has been produced in the Court and the same is taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent does not raise any serious objection to the aforesaid. He, however, states that the surety bond which has been furnished by the petitioner may be ordered to be kept alive during the pendency of the suit and the revision petition may be disposed of by directing the trial Court to decide the suit in a time-bound frame. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 14.12.2006 whereby, the defendant-petitioner was directed to furnish the surety bond, which has been accepted by the trial Court on 22.12.2006 is made absolute and the revision petition is disposed of, accordingly. It is, however, made clear that in case the suit is not decided by the trial Court so far, it shall make sincere endeavour to decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months as it relates to the year 2004. July 31, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE