Civil Revision No.2049 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: April 25, 2008 Kaku Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Kulwinder Kaur ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT:Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Battas, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the condition imposed by the trial court on the petitioner to furnish surety bonds while granting him leave to defend, he has filed the present revision petition. Petitioner Kaku Singh had filed this application seeking leave to defend in a suit filed by respondent for recovery of loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on the basis of a pronote and receipt in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioner had denied the execution of the Civil Revision No.2049 of 2007 : 2 : pronote and the receipt pleading that these were due to fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration. Taking into account the defence set up by the petitioner, the court felt that he has raised triable issues and as such she should be allowed to defend the suit. It is further noticed that the petitioner had not denied the signatures on the pronote and receipt and accordingly the court opined that he would not be entitled to an unconditional leave to defend and the interest of the respondent-plaintiff was required to be safeguarded. Accordingly, while granting the leave to defend the suit, the petitioner was directed to furnish surety bonds to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- within a period of one month. Mr.S.S.Sallar, counsel for the petitioner would contend that petitioner is entitled to an unconditional order of leave to defend and in his support has relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mechalec Engineers and Manufactures Vs. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, AIR 1977 SC 577. As observed in this case, principles to be followed are stated as under:- “(a) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. (b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence although not a positively good defence the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to Civil Revision No.2049 of 2007 : 3 : unconditional leave to defend. (c ) If the defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, that is to say, although the affidavit does not positively and immediately make it clear that he had a defence, yet, shews such a state of facts as leads to the inference that at the trial of the action he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff's claim the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment and the defendant is entitled to leave to defend but in such a case the Court may in its discretion impose conditions as to the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security. (d) If the defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is not entitled to leave to defend. (e) If the defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then although ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment, the Court may protect the plaintiff by only allowing the defence to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into Court or otherwise secured and give leave to the defendant on such condition, and thereby show mercy to the defendant by enabling him to try to prove Civil Revision No.2049 of 2007 : 4 : a defence.” On the basis of above principles, the counsel would contend that petitioner has made out a case for grant of unconditional leave to defend. In the case of M/s.Mechalec Engineers and Manufactures' (supra) , the High Court, after setting aside the order passed by the trial court, had granted leave to defend on payment of amount of Rs.21,265/- together with interest with the direction to the defendant therein to deposit the same within two months. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the case did not fall in the category where the leave to defend was to be granted on the condition of deposit of the amount. In the present case, the petitioner has not been directed to deposit any amount and he has only been asked to furnish surety. Mr.Battas representing the respondent would refer to S.Raju Versus C.Sathammai, 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 228 to say in some-what similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted leave to defend on deposit of part of the claim. He accordingly submits that it is not a case where the unconditional leave to defend can be granted. Mr.Battas points out that the petitioner has not denied the signatures on the pronote and the receipt. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order requiring the petitioner to furnish security, which would call for any interference. The revision is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, however, would get one month time from today to furnish surety as directed by the trial court. April 25,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE Civil Revision No.2049 of 2007 : 5 :