By order dated 04.07.2017, the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, allowed I.A.No.393 of 2017 in O.S.No.954 of 2015 holding that the defendant in the suit, the petitioner in the said I.A., was entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff on the affidavit filed by him for passing judgment and to argue the matter. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. O.S.No.954 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 37 CPC for recovery of money on the strength of promissory notes. Earlier, when the defendant in the said suit filed an application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) CPC seeking the leave of the Court to defend the suit, the trial Court granted him leave conditionally. Aggrieved by the condition imposed that he should deposit a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- within a time frame, he filed C.R.P.No.1662 of 2017 before this Court. The said revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 11.04.2017 holding that the condition imposed was not onerous.

3. Having suffered the said order, it is an admitted fact that the defendant in the suit failed to deposit the amount as directed by the trial Court as a condition precedent for grant of leave to defend the suit. He however filed the subject I.A.No.393 of 2017 therein detailing the alleged erroneous claims made by the plaintiff in his affidavit to pass judgment and asserted that unless he cross-examined the plaintiff, the true facts would not come to light. As the trial Court had already posted the suit for judgment, he prayed for re-opening of the suit so as to enable him to establish his case. He further stated that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if he was permitted to cross-examine him on the affidavit filed for passing judgment. Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425 was cited, wherein the Supreme Court held that even if a defendant is set ex parte, he would still be entitled to take part in the proceedings from that stage, including the cross-examination of witnesses who are examined thereafter, subject to such terms and conditions as the Court may impose.

4. Accepting this ratio, the trial Court opined that though the defendant had failed to comply with the earlier order requiring him to make a pre-deposit as a condition precedent for grant of leave to defend the suit, his right to cross-examine the plaintiff and argue would not be barred and accordingly allowed the I.A. Hence, this revision.

5. Heard Sri P. Surya Narayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, and Smt. G. Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

6. At the outset, it may be noted that Order 37 CPC prescribes the summary procedure to be followed in the classes of suits to which it applies. The essence of a summary suit is that the defendant therein is not entitled as of right to defend the suit, as in an ordinary suit. He has to apply for leave to defend within a time frame and such leave would be granted only if he succeeds in disclosing facts that would make it necessary for the plaintiff to prove consideration or such facts as the Court may deem sufficient for granting leave. If no leave to defend is granted, the plaintiff would be straightaway entitled to a decree.

7. The thrust of the summary procedure prescribed under Order 37 CPC is to prevent unreasonable obstruction by a defendant who has no real defence. Order 37 Rule 1 CPC details the Courts and the suits to which such summary procedure would apply. Suits based on bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes find mention in Order 37 Rule 1(2)(a) CPC. Order 37 Rule 2 details the procedure to be followed for institution of summary suits and sub-rule (3) thereof provides that the defendant shall not defend the suit unless he enters appearance and in default of his entering appearance, allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff s