JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---This suit is filed for realisation of an amount of Rs. 66,850/- from the defendant who admittedly executed the suit promissory note Exh. "O" dated 10th December, 1991 for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- The defendant has filed a reply contesting the plaint claim. Apart from that he disputes the suit claim on the ground that he has already paid all the amount to the plaintiff, defendant has raised a contention that the plaintiff failed to comply with the time frame prescribed under the Rule 227 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Original Side Rules which reads as under:

"If the plaintiff does not apply for a decree within six months after the filling of the plaint, the suit shall be set down for dismissal on the board of the Judge in chambers. The Prothonotary and Senior Master shall notify on his notice board the date on which the suit is to be so set down and he shall do so at least eight days before such date. If the plaintiff is appearing in person, the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall give notice of the date to the plaintiff by sending a letter to him by post under certificate of posting."

2.In view of the above clause, the defendant submit that he is entitled to unconditional leave. In order to address this question, it is necessary to refer to certain dates relevant for consideration. The present suit was filed on 12th December, 1994. It appears that the plaint was under certain objections and Court records shows that the objection was removed and the suit deemed to have been filed on 2-2-1995. After filling this suit, summons was applied for by the plaintiff on 31-7-97. The summons was issued on 20-12-1997. The writ of summons was served on defendant on 23-6-1998. The defendant appeared on 30-6-1998. The learned Counsel for the defendant raised preliminary objection that since the plaintiff did not apply for the decree within six months from the date of the filling of the suit as envisaged under Rule 227, suit ought to have been listed for dismissal by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, and therefore, non-compliance of this provision entitles him for unconditional leave to defend the case. To counter this argument, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submit that the defendant is also in violation of the rules. According to him sub-rule (3) of the Order 37 of C.P.C. mandates the defendant that he should enter appearance within 10 days of receipt of the summons and he shall file address for service of notice on him. Though defendant did not commit any delay in filing his appearance because, according to the Counsel for the plaintiff, defendant filed appearance on 29-6-1998. While he was served as I indicated earlier on 23-6-1998, he committed delay in filing his reply after the service of summons for judgment. According to sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order 37 defendant has to file his affidavit seeking leave to defend the suit within 10 days of receipt of the Summons for judgment. If any failure in doing so, sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of Order 37 comes to the rescue of the defendant to invoke jurisdiction of this Court to condone the delay showing sufficient cause for such delay. The exercise of such discretion is not available as far as the failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 227 of the High Court Rule is concerned. On a reading of Rule 227 of the High Court Rules and Order 37 of C.P.C. will go to show that those provisions has prescribed certain time frame for dealing with summary suits. The legislative objective for fixing such time frame is quite obvious. The summary suits are separately be classified for the separate treatment without being subjected to cumbersome and time consuming procedure laid down by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which are applicable for other suits. This class of suits are mainly affecting the trading or business of the society. If the commercial activities of the society is entangled in the litigation waiting for a result end

Click Here to Read the rest of this document