( 1 ) THIS C. R. P. is filed against the order, dated 26. 12. 2003, in I. A. No. 689 of 2003, in O. S. No. 375 of 2003, on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. The defendant in the suit is the petitioner and the sole plaintiff is the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed, in the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed O. S. No. 375 of 2002, against the defendant, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 76,926/-, in. the trial court, by invoking the procedure under Order 37 Rule 4 C. P. C. An ex parte decree was passed on 15. 11. 2002. The defendant filed i. A. No. 689 of 2003, under Rule 4 of Order 37 CPC, with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree, and sought permission to contest the suit, by filing the written statement. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. Through its order, dated 26. 1. 2. 2003, the trial court dismissed the application.

( 3 ) SRI M. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the defendant, submits that the summons in the suit were served upon the defendant on 7. 10. 2002, and that appearance was entered on 23. 10. 2002. He contends that notwithstanding this development, the plaintiff filed a memo on 1. 11. 2002 into the trial court, staling that the defendant did not file any Vakalath and based on the same, the trial court passed an ex parte decree on 15. 11. 2002. He contends that once the defendant entered appearance by the time the trial court took up the matter, it was under obligation to examine whether the plaintiff has followed the procedure, such as, delivery of summons for judgment, etc. He contends that once such material lapses were pointed out by filing the present I. A. , the trial court ought to have set aside the ex parte. decree, and permitted the defendant to contest the matter, on merits.

( 4 ) SRI T. Raghuram, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the defendant was under obligation to enter appearance within 10 days, from the date of receipt of the summons and having failed to do so, he cannot raise objection for passing of an ex parte decree. Learned counsel submits that the very object of prescribing the summary procedure, under Order37 c. P. C. , is to ensure that claims of certain categories are resolved, as early as possible. He submits that no exception can be taken to the order under revision.

( 5 ) ORDER 37 CPC prescribes the summary procedure, which can be invoked in suits filed for recovery of amounts or debts, based upon bills of exchange, written contracts, enactments, guarantees, etc. Several judgments rendered, by the supreme Court and the High Courts have dealt with the various facets of Order 37 C. P. C. Therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the same, in detail. Broadly stated, the procedure is that, in such a suit, the defendant shall not be entitled to defend the suit, unless he enters appearance as provided for, under Rule 2 (3) of Order 37. Rule 3 (1) of Order 37, obligates the plaintiff to serve on the defendant, the copy of the plaint and enclosures. It proceeds to add that the defendant may, at any time, within ten days of such service, enter appearance, and leave address for service of notices on him. A further obligation is cast upon the defendant, to serve notice on the plaintiff about the appearance, on the same day on which he was entered into the Court.

( 6 ) SUB-RULE (4) of Rule 3 of Order 37 C. P. C. , cases an obligation on the plaintiff, to serve summons for judgment, on the defendant, returnable in a particular time. It is apt to extract the same:"3 (4 ). If the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff shall thereafter serve on the defendant: a summons for judgment in Form No. 4a in Appendix B or such other form as may be prescribed from time to time returnable not less than ten clays from the date of service supported by an affidavit verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed and stating that in his belief there is no defence to the suit. "the obligation on th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document