XI-HCv—78 WWW ’wmm Mr. Anand Shukla, Adv for The peli'rioner. Heard on admission. By 1'his pefiiion under cle 227 of The Cons'rifuiion of India, 'I'he pefi‘iioner has impugned 'ih order da‘l'ed 24.6.2008 of Annexure P—4 passed in Civil Sui? No.5—B 08 whereby +he learned 3rd Addi‘l‘ional Disirici' Judge, Bilaspur has ' ied leave +0 defend 1'0 'l'he defendan'i/ peii'rioner herein on the condi'ri n fha'r he shall furnish bank guaran'iee for a sum of Rs.3,40,076/- wiih n a period of one mofh. Briefly sfa'l’ed facfs of case are fha't The respondenT—bank has filed a suiT for recovery un er Order 37 Rules 1 & 2 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for sh ‘Code') as The peTiTioner/defendanT made defaulTs in paymenT of l of Rs.3,04,077/- advanced T/ohim for o e A i g ‘ e o o PETITIONR . Safik Khan, S/o Shri Md. Shamin, Defendant Aged _ uf 48 years, R/o D/26, Subhas Block, ecfor-L, Colliery Eas'r, Shiv Mandir, Korba, isf. Karba (C5) Vs RESPONDENI ICICI ank L‘l'd., Through Recovery Manager, Plaintiff Ashish 5ingh, 5/0 Late Shri Bilson Singh, Aged uf 30 years, Territory Office, Vyapar- Vihar, Near Ashish Aufomobile, Bilaspu (C3) 18.07.2008 XI‘HC*78 mm E1200 3mm (1mm) WWW mmm Wm%:‘€tm F’Zx 31‘aifdttm WWW fhe purchase of vehicle. The sponden'r/pluin'l'iff's applicmion under Order 40 Rule 1 of The Code f r appoinfmen'r of Receiver was allowed. Applica‘lion of The pe‘l’ifioner u der Order 37 Rule 5 of fhe Code for gram of leave +0 defend has been allowed vide impugned order of Annexure P-4 on 'rhe condiTion, menfioned above. Learned counsel for fhe pefifioner submi'rs fhaf The pe'ri'rioner had purchased fhe vehicle in uesfion from one Mohanlal Jain affer obfaining loan from fhe respo dent Subsequenfly, if was discovered fhu'f 'rhe said vehicle is a sfole vehicle and Therefore, ‘l'he pe‘l’i‘lioner immediafely handed over The To The concerned police sTaTion. The peTiTioner was regularly payin insTallmenTs of loan Till he had The possession wiTh him, however, a Ter The vehicle was seized in a criminal offence, There were some de Ts in paymenT of loan and Therefore, The suiT for recovery of loan as been filed. IT was furTher argued ThaT before advancing loan T officers of The respondenT bank had scruTinized and verified The d cumenTs of The vehicle and only afTer geTTing Themselves saTisfied h d sancTioned The loan for The purchase of The said vehicle. He had ap lied for leave To defend on The ground ThaT his conducT was bonafide Therefore, The courT below was noT jusTified in imposing onerous c ndiTion of furnishing bank guaranTee To ‘. ./ / e e g e l f h d XI-HC—78 mm E1200 mm (Wu) mam ’ammm WW Wm $a€mm WWW ,3» +he Tune of Rs.3,40,076/-. Relying upon The judgmenfs in fhe matfer of Sonfosh Kumar Vs Bhai Mool S reported in AIR 1958 SUPREME COURT 321: M/s Mechalec neers and Manufacfurer's Vs. M/s Basic Equipmen'tCorpora'fion rep Fred in AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 577 & M/s sunil Enterprises Imema‘tional Bank Ltd. reporf d in AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 2317, i? was argued Thu-r defend 1* was en'ri'Hed +0 uncondifional leave 'I'o defend as he has raised friabl issue and he has honest and bonafide defence. From ‘l’he fac‘rs pleaded by fhe pe'rifioner in The insfan'i' pe'l’i'rion if is evident fha'r the pe'rifioner purchased second hand jeep from a privafe person af‘rer obfaining oan from responden'r bank. If was subsequenfiy discovered fhaf 'rh vehicle purchased by The pefitioner was s'l'olen vehicle. Thus, fhe pe'fi ioner ob‘l'ained loan for The purchase of sTolen vehicle which has bee seized by The police. learned Trial courT keeping in view The ove ll circumsTances in which loan was obTained by The peTiTioner for The purchase of sTolen vehicle has granTed leave To defend while i posing condiTion of furnjihing bank. guaranTee. anofher Vs. SBI Commercia! and ,/_ i h E i a XI‘HC—78 mm 111200 mm (W)