' It is argued that leave to appear was granted vide order, dated 24th of April, 1998 and the appellant was directed to furnish surety bond by 16th of May, 1998. It is added that the time was not sufficient.
2. On the other hand, it is argued that the time allowed as more than sufficient and the appellant did not enter appearance on 16th of May, 1998. It is added that the trial Court adjourned the case to 18th of May, 1998 for the same proceedings and thus, provided yet another opportunity to the said appellant. It is added that neither the appellant appear nor furnish the surety bond. It is added that even the order was suspended subject to the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee, even this order was not complied.
3. we have given anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The appellant was allowed leave to appear vide order, dated 24th of April, 1998 subject to furnishing security bond in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 (three lacs) by 16th of May, 1998. The appellant neither appeared nor submitted bond nor filed written statement. The suit was then adjourned to 18th of May, 1998 for same proceedings but the appellant still failed to avail the same. Thereafter the learned trial Court had no choice but to decree the suit. This is not all. The conduct of the appellant is that he got decree suspended vide order, dated 24th of June, 1998 passed in this appeal. It was subject to furnishing Bank Guarantee. This order has again not been complied.
4. The upshot of discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed with costs.