JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. Mr. H. S. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 18th May, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Muzaffarnagar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1998 on the ground that since both the Courts below have come to a finding that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish a prime facie case and had refused injunction, therefore, no Bank guarantee could be directed to be furnished by the petitioner-defendant. In such circumstances, according to him, there was no application by the plaintiffs for any such order to be passed in the proceedings. Therefore, according to him, the order directing furnishing of the Bank guarantee by the defendant and affirmed by the appellate court, cannot be sustained.
2. I have heard the learned counsel at length.
3. So far as the order refusing to grant Injunction in favour of the plaintiffs is concerned, the same has not been challenged. It is apparent that both the Courts below have come to a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs have not been able to make out a prima facie case. At the same time, it has come to a finding that the matter is pending decision finally. It has also been recorded a finding of fact there are every likelihood of waste or damage of the fund by reason of operation of the Bank accounts by the defendants since there was no injunction operating. The question as to the right of the parties to operate the Bank account is subject to determination finally in suit. In such circumstances, the Court had come to a finding that in order to secure the ends of justice, the defendants should furnish Bank guarantee to the extent of the amount in fund. This order has since been affirmed by the appellate court. Under Order XXXIX. Rule 1. Clause (a) of the Code of the Civil Procedure, the Court is empowered to grant such order against any of the parties if there is any likelihood if the property in dispute in a suit of being in danger or wasted or damaged or alienated by any of the party to the suit as it may deem fit.
4. In the present case, the Court had found it within the scope and ambit of clause (a) of Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code and it is entitled to pass any such order. As such. I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is prepared to furnish Bank guarantee in the form of immovable properties to the satisfaction of the Court below. It is contended that the defendant is unable to furnish Bank guarantee or cash.
6. So far as the question of furnishing Bank guarantee is concerned, the same is modified to the extent that it will be open to the defendant to furnish security either in the form of Bank guarantee as a whole or in part and part by furnishing security in the form of immovable properties or as a whole, as the case may be to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, if such security is furnished, it will be open to the learned trial court to accept the same in the form of immovable properties or otherwise subject to its satisfaction.
7. With these observations, this writ petition Is disposed of. The impugned order dated 18th August, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Second Court, Muzaffarnagar, in the cross-objection in connection with Misc. Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1998 and the order dated 4th May, 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge. [Senior Division), Muzaffarnagar in Original Suit No. 177 of 1998 with regard to furnishing of security stands modified to the above extent. No costs.
8. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges at the earliest.