1. Petitioner's application for grant of leave, under Rule 2 (2) of Order XXXVII of the C.P.C., to defend the respondent's suit for recovery of Rs. 1,00,wc' on the basis of denial of execution of the pronote sued upon, despite absence of any plausible explanation, succeeded in soliciting the desired leave by the order, dated 2-7-1989 on the condition of his depositing in cash half of the sum in suit or providing Bank guarantee for the same alongwith a personal surety for the remaining half before the next date, fixed as 21-9-1989. In passing this order learned District Judge took particular notice of absence of explanation with regard to thumb-impressions appearing on the pronote, if they happened to be his and still granted leave on the aforementioned condition. No doubt, therein he wisely exercised the discretion vested in him by law to strike balance between two extremes capable of emerging in result of trial.
2. 2.Considering himself aggrieved of such a treatment, defendant has a invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court which can actually be available to be exercised for interference in discretionary orders of such character as may) happen to result from fanciful or arbitrary exercise of power conferred by law (PLD 1970 SC 139 and PLD 1983 SC 53). Reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on 1986 CLC 2212, though not wrong, is inapt in the circumstances of this case for the reason of its being a mere repetition of the rule enunciated in the' Supreme Court case. Real point of distinction in this case is that the discretion exercised by learned District Judge is far from being arbitrary or fanciful and is, thus, incapable of being interfered with in exercise of revisional power.
3. 3.In result of the foregoing there is no merit found in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.