Through instant revision petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 10.09.2020, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, whereby petitioner was granted leave to appear and contest the suit subject to submission of bank guarantee of an amount of Rs. 55,00,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to the interim order dated 28.10.2020, passed by this Court, surety bond equivalent to the claimed amount has already been submitted. She adds that learned trial Court is proceeding with the case and evidence is being recorded, therefore, condition for submission of bank guarantee is harsh. When confronted, learned counsel for respondent could not controvert the above fact.
3. Heard.
4. Perusal of record shows that. petitioner has raised a plea regarding return of borrowed amount in presence of witnesses and in the given circumstanc es, condition imposed through impugned order for submission of bank guarantee is unjustified, which fact could not be rebutted by learned counsel for respondent despite arguments at some length. The condition imposed by learned trial Court, is harsh and tantamounts to negate the principle of law, therefore, same is untenable. Reliance is placed upon Muhammad Ashraf v . Akhlaq Sheeda ( 2007 CLD 267 ).
5. In view of the above, instant petition is allowed in the manner that impugned order to the extent of imposition of condition for submission of bank guarantee is set aside, however , surety bond equivalent to the claimed amount already submitted by petitioner pursuant to stay order dated 28.10:2020, passed by this Court is substituted with bank guarantee: