S.P. Goyal, J. - (1.) THE respondent instituted a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for realisation of the amount in dispute on the basis of a pronote. The defendant sought permission of the Court under rule 3 of Order 37 of the Code to defend the suit. The learned Sub Judge vide order dated March 5, 1979, had granted conditional permission to defend the suit. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition under section 115 of the Code by the defendant.
(2.) THE first objection raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of Order 37 are not applicable to the Courts at Chandigarh and, therefore, no suit is competent under this provision. Reliance for this contention is placed on the rule as amended by this Court which was in force prior to the enforcement of the amended Code with effect from February 1, 1977. According to that rule only the Courts of District Judge and Sub Judge 1st class of the Delhi province and in Districts of Lahore and Amritsar were invested with the jurisdiction to entertain such suits. The argument is wholly misconceived of the amended substance Prior to the enforcement of the amended Code, no court in the State of Punjab or the Union Territory of Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Order 37 of the Code unless it was specifically empowered in this behalf by the State Government After the enforcement of the amended provision all Courts have the jurisdiction to entertain suit, under Order 37 of the Code unless their jurisdiction is curtailed by the High Court by notification in the official gazette. There being no such notification pertaining to the Courts at Chandigarh these Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits under Order 37 of the Code. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of provision of section 157 of the Code the operation of the earlier rule is saved, is also without any substance because only those rules are saved which do not run counter to the provisions of the amended Code. The rule framed by the High Court under the old Act certainly run counter to the provisions of Order 37 as contained in the amended Code. Therefore, the provisions of section 157 of the Code are not attracted in the present case The petition, has however, to be allowed on the other ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction to limit the defence to certain pleas only. Mr. H.S. Awasthy, Learned Counsel for the respondent also does not challenge this proposition. Similarly the order of the trial Court restraining the defendants from selling the house owned by him was not justified in view of the fact that the defendant is prepared to offer adequate security for the amount in dispute to the satisfaction of the Court. This petition is consequently allowed to the extent stated above and the trial Court is directed to allow adequate opportunity to the defendant to file written statement and to proceed thereafter in accordance with law. The ad -interim order restraining the defendant from selling the house is also vacated provided the defendant furnishes adequate security for the suit amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within 15 days from today. The security shall be accepted after notice to the plaintiff. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on the date fixed i.e. August 18, 1979.;