Through this civil revision, the petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as "the petitioner") seeks the validity of impugned judgment dated 30.03.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby, the learned appellate Court, while allowing application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, imposed the condition by directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed amount, in cash, and 50% amount through bank guarantee, regarding the detection bill within a period of one month.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the business of CNG, has been suffered a huge loss, and the dispute regarding slowness of meter, can be ascertained only through trill of the case, therefore, half of the disputed amount, which has already been deposited before the trial Court, and now the condition of deposit of remaining amount through bank guarantee is also in the nature of cash, which is harsh in nature. However, the petitioner is ready to furnish the surety bond to the extent of said amount.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants opposed the contentions and defended the impugned judgment by stating that the reasons rendered by the learned appellate Court are justified, which do not require any further interference therein.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. At the very outset, it is not out of place to mention here that the condition of cash amount and the condition of bank guarantee, relates to the same nature, therefore, bifurcation of 50% with regard to cash and the remaining 50% as bank guarantee, does not seem to be difference in nature. It is also pertinent to mention here that, when the stay application of the petitioner was accepted by the appellate Court, the order was not assailed or impugned by the respondents; therefore, with the proposed offer of changing of amount of bank guarantee with surety bond did not affect the rights of the respondents.
6. Without adverting to the merits of the case, the offer made by the petitioner that he is ready to furnish the surety bond in the like amount to the remaining 50% seems to be reasonable, which is hereby allowed. The petitioner is directed to deposit the surety bond of the remaining 50% of disputed bill.
7. With the above modification, this petition is allowed, and the petitioner is directed to submit surety bond to the tune of 50% amount of the disputed bill before the trial Court before further proceedings in the case. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to abide the above modification up-to 11.03.2017, then the impugned order of appellate Court dated 30.03.2013 shall stand revived. It is further directed that the above suit be decided on merits within two months from the receipt of this order.