B. PRAKASH RAO, J, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision, the case has been referred to the Division Bench by one of us (BPR, J) for an authoritative pronouncement on the question as to whether the non-issuance of a reply notice to the prior notice by the defendant in a summary suit would amount to an admission and bars the defendant to seek leave to defend under sub-rule (5) of rule 3 of Order 37 of the Code of Civil procedure.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stating, the facts in the case are that the respondent herein has filed a summary suit for recovery of a sum of rs. 25,780/- with future interest from the date of the suit, on the allegation that the defendant for his necessity borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 on 16. 6. 1999 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 2% per month and executed a promissory note. In spite of the demands made and issuance of a registered notice on 20. 4. 2002, the defendant did not pay the amount. Hence the suit.

( 3 ) ON appearance, the petitioner- defendant had filed the present application in LA. No. 895 of 2002 in O. S. No. 177 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil judge, Narsapur under Order 37, Rule 3 (5) of CPC, seeking leave to defend the suit on the alle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document