- (1.) This revision has been directed against the order dated 19.11.1992, passed by A.D.J. No. 2 Kota, in Civil Suit No. 61/1992, by which the said Court rejected the application of the defendant-Petitioners for granting leave to defend the suit.
(2.) Brief relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff non-Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 93,830.70 p. alongwith interest. The Petitioner filed an application, under Order 37 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code and prayed that they may be granted leave to defend the suit. The learned A.D.J. No. 2 Kota, vide his Order dated 19.11.1992, rejected the said application against the order by which the application for grant of leave to defend was rejected, the Petitioners have filed the present revision.
(3.) I have heard Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the defence raised by the Petitioners is neither sham or illusory not the Court held so. And under these circumstances, there was no question of rejecting the application of the Petitioners for grant of leave to defend the suit. Mr. Kuhad further submits that under these circumstances, at the best the Court should have directed the Petitioners to submit solvent security or bank guarantee, but should not have rejected the application. He submits that the application has been rejected in arbitrary way. Counsel for the Petitioners further contends that the Petitioners are prepared to submit bank guarantee of the decreelal amount within one month from today and will keep the same subsisting during the pendency of the suit.;