GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Senior Civil judge, Sathupalli dated 3-10-2002 in i. A. No. 332 of 2002 in O. S. No. 21 of 2002 refusing to condone delay of 17 days in giving notice of appearance of the defendant no. 1 who is the revision petitioner herein, to the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent-plaintiff filed o. S. No. 21 of 2002 against the defendants under Order 37 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of civil Procedure (for short the Code ) for recovery of money basing on certain chit transactions. As it is a summary suit, the 1st defendant ought to have put his appearance within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of summons. The revision petitioner 1st defendant made his appearance through his advocate by filing a vakalat into Court on 6-7-2002. As there was a delay of 17 days in putting his appearance, he filed an application under Order 37 Rule 3 (7) of the code. The Court below dismissed the said application holding that there is no provision under Rule 3 of Order 37 of the code, which enables the Court to extend the period for giving notice of appearance to the plaintiff and to furnish address to the plaintiff by the defendant.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the summons sent for service on the 1st defendant are not in the form in which it ought to be and as such the suit itself could not be treated as the one instituted under summary procedure. He further contended that the petitioner-1st defendant was bed-ridden with fever from 6-7-2002 to 22-7-2002 and therefore the delay ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice. According to him, sub-rule (7) of rule 3 of Order 37 of the Code empowers the Court below to condone the delay in entering an appearance if the defendant shows sufficient cause.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff contends that the petitioner has not given cogent reasons in not putting his appearance before the Court below within the time stipulated and as such the Court below is justified in refusing to condone the delay.

( 5 ) IN the light of the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is relevant to look into order 37 Rule 3 of the Code, which reads as under: " (1) In a suit to which this Order applies, the plaintiff shall, together with the summons under Rule 2, serve on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexure thereto and the defendant may, at any time within ten days of such service, enter an appearance either in person or by pleader and, in either case, he shall file in Court an address for service of notices on him. (2) Unless otherwise ordered, all summons, notices and other judicial processes, required to be served on the defendant, shall be deemed to have been duly served on him if they are left at the address given by him for such service. (3) On the day of entering the appearance, notice of such appearance shall be given by the defendant to the plaintiff s pleader, or, if the plaintiff sues in person, to the plaintiff himself, either by notice delivered at or sent by a prepaid letter directed to the address of the plaintiff s pleader or of the plaintiff, as the case may be. (4) If the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff shall thereafter serve on the defendant a summons for judgment in Form No. 4-A in Appendix B or such other Form as may be prescribed from time to time, returnable not less than ten days 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 in no defence to the suit. (5) The defendant may, at any time within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, by affidavit or otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such te

Click Here to Read the rest of this document