- (1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is decided finally at the admission stage.
(2.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 23rd May, 2012 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to be as the 'Trial Court'), whereby the trial Court has granted conditional leave to defend the suit to the petitioner. The short facts of the case as given in the present petition are that the respondent no.2 (Original plaintiff) has filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant seeking recovery of Rs.3,08,000/-, under the provisions contained in Order XXXVII of CPC. The petitioner-defendant, having filed his appearance, had sought leave to defend the suit. The trial Court permitted the petitioner to defend the suit on the condition of furnishing the Fixed Deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of security, vide the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2012. Being aggrieved with the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Narendra Mewara for the petitioner that the trial Court having observed that the application seeking leave to defend was not filed to delay the proceedings nor the same was vexatious, the trial Court should have granted an unconditional leave to defend the suit. The learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Santosh Kumar Vs. Bhai Mool Singh, reported in AIR 1958, Supreme Court, 321 (V.45 C52) and in case of Mrs. Raj Duggal, V. Ramesh Kumar Bansal reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2218 in support of his submissions.;