AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.C. Gupta, J.—Heard. I have gone through the impugned order dated 11.2.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Patiala. The Court was clearly of the view that the defence put forth by the petitioner-defendant is no defence or the defence is illusory or sham and accordingly, the respondent was granted the leave to defend the suit subject to the condition that he should deposit 50% of the suit amount in the court and furnish security of the remaining amount in the Court. There is no illegality in the order dated 11.2.2002 because the defence put forth was that the thumb impressions were obtained on blank pronote and were converted into a negotiable instrument. Since it was admitted by the petitioner that he had thumb marked the pronote and the receipt, so the presumption is that it was executed for consideration. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. However, now the petitioner is directed to comply with the order within two weeks.
Accordingly the revision petition stands disposed of.