R.S.KEJRIWAL,J. - (1.) THE Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his order dated 23.2.1996, held that there was no ground to grant of leave to defend the suit. This order was challenged by the defendant -petitioner in Civil Rev. No. 370/96. This Court vide order dated 29.2.1996, directed as below: I direct that in case the petitioner submits bank -guarantee of Rs. 10,000/ -and gives solvent -security for the rest of the amount claimed in the suit, within a period of one month, before the trial court, he is permitted to defend the suit. The trial court was directed to decide the suit expeditiously. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of the Court, the petitioner submitted bank -guarantee and solvent security within the aforesaid period but the guarantee -was submitted before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaipur City, Jaipur, and not before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur City, Jaipur. Lateron, on the application of the defendant petitioner, this Court, vide its order dated 9.4.1996, modified the said order and 15 days time was given to the petitioner to give bank guarantee to the proper Court.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that in accordance with the order passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted bank -guarantee before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Me moved an application in this connection before this Court to extend the time granted by this Court on 29.2.1996. This Court vide its order dated 22.5.1996, extended the time, provided the application for leave to appeal has not been decided. He produced the order before the trial Court., but the trial Court, vide its order dated 25.5.1996, refused to take the bank -guarantee and solvent security on the ground that application for leave to appeal was already rejected on 23.2.1996. This order has been challenged in this revision. Notice of the revision was given to the non -petitioner. The non -petitioner has been served. None appeared on behalf of the non -petitioner even in second round. I heard counsel for the petitioner and gone -through the various orders passed by this Court -From the order dated 29.2.1996, the defendant petitioner was permitted to defend the suit on certain terms and conditions. The petitioner has already complied with the terms and conditions imposed by this Court. Under these circumstances, the order dated 23.2.1996, passed by the trial court automatically stood quashed and set -aside. The trial court has committed serious illegality in not giving effect to the order dated 29.2.1996, passed by this Court and rejected the application of the petitioner in arbitrary way vide its order dated 25.5.1996. In case the said order is allowed to stand, it would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , I allow the revision, set -aside the order dated 25.5.1996, and allow the application for leave to defend the suit. I further direct the trial court to accept the bank -guarantee and solvent security submitted by the defendant petitioner and decide the suit expeditiously as ordered by this Court in its earlier order.;