Full Text
I
"
IN THE HIGH COURT OF c.R.P.82/20t1
SADHNA DEVI
Through:
DELHI AT NEW DELIII..... Petitioner
Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate
VEISUS
SI.]NIL KUMAR ..... Respondent
Throueh: None
06.07.201r
I havc heard the learned counsel ofthe petitioner-defendant.
The petitioner-defendant had filed an application under Order 37 rule 3(5) CPC seeking leave to defend the suit for lecovery of { 3,53,6001- filed by the respondent- plaintiff which has been disposed off by the learned trial Court by granting leave to defend but subject to the condition that the petitioner-defendant would deposit 50% of the
Rs.2.60 lacs (principal amount) in court.
The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of { 3,53,600/- under Order
ORDER
37 CPC based on a mortgage deed. The petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 37 rule 3(5) CPC seeking leave to defend on ground that no amount was ever given by the respondent-plaintiff to her and that she had been made to sign the mortgage deed fraudulently by the respondent-plaintiff. The learned counsel fol the petitioner-defendant submitted that the trial Court itself, in the impugned order, has observed that the petitioner-defendant has a reasonable defence, though not a clear defence and thus no condition could have been irnposed while granting leave to defend. c.R.P.82l20LL Paee 1 of 2 2011:DHC:10163 (>J After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record including impugned order of the trial Courl, I am of the view that there is no material iregularity committed by the learned trial Court in giving conditional leave to defend and I do not see any reason to interfere with the decision of the trial Court. This revision petition is dismissed in limine. P.K. BHASIN,J JULY 06,20lllpg c.R.P.82/2011 Pase[2] of[2] 4l