The precise grievance of the petitioner is that leave to appear and defend the suit is granted by the learned trial Court under Order XXXVII, Rules 2 and 3, C.P.C. By furnishing bank guarantee to the amount of Rs.1,96,523 and this exercise of discretion is not judicious.
2. Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. For recovery of Rs.1,96,523 against the present petitioner/defendant in the Court of learned District Judge, Vehari stating therein that the defendant had been getting agricultural medicine on loan from the plaintiff/respondent and signed the cash memo. And that the petitioner/defendant had issued a cheque of Rs.3,00,000 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent to be withdrawn from the Allied Bank of Pakistan but the same was not withdrawn in cash. Learned trial Court proceeded ex parse. On application the ex parte decree was set aside subject to the payment of Rs.300 as cost and on the application by the present petitioner under Rule 3 of Order XXXVII, C.P.C. To appear and defend his suit was contested by the plaintiff/respondent. However, counsel for the plaintiff/respondent gave statement before learned trial Court on 14-3-1996 that the Court may allow the present petitioner to appear and defend the suit provided he gives bank guarantee against subject-matter of the suit. On the statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiff the leave to defend the suit was allowed to the petitioner on the condition that he should submit the bank guarantee on the next date of hearing and the case was adjourned for written statement on 10-9-1996. Learned counsel further submits that on the application for cancellation of ex parse decree the petitioner has already been directed by the learned trial Court to give personal security against the amount of Rs.1,96,000 to the satisfaction of trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred Order XXXVII, Rule 3(2), C.P.C. Which goes as follows:-- - .
"Leave to defend may be given unconditionally or subject to such terms as to payment into Court, giving security, framing and recording issues or otherwise as the Court thinks fit."
The words "otherwise as the Court thinks fit" gives the Court a discretion to grant leave to defend to its satisfaction, therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the order of learned trial Court for furnishing the bank guarantee against the subject-matter of the suit. Moreover, the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff that he has no objection if the Court allows the leave to defend the suit to the present petitioner if he furnishes bank guarantee was not resisted. Since the Courts below have exercised jurisdiction within the four corners of the law, therefore, I see no legal infirmity to interfere on the revisional side into impugned finding of the learned trial Court, therefore, the instant civil revision is dismissed in limine.