The court has the power to abridge or enlarge the time fixed by the Rules for the ends of justice, and a party's failure to object to a procedural irregularity may constitute a waiver of their objection.

ORDER :- Sarda Debi, the plaintiff, instituted this suit against Pacific Garments the defendant, on or about the 29th of June, 1981, claiming, inter alia, a decree for Rs. 52,937.50 P. interest and costs.

2. The plaintiffs cause of action as appearing from the plaint is, inter alia, that the plaintiff lent and advanced to he defendants, a sum of Rs. 50,000 by a cheque dated the 8th April 1980 solely for the purpose of the business of the defendant. It was agreed that the defendant would repay the said sum with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

3. On or about the 2nd Jan., 1981, the defendant made over to the plaintiff a cheque for Rs. 50,000 on Canara Bank towards repayment of the said loan. The said cheque was dishonoured by non-payment.

4. The present application of the plaintiff is on a summons dt. the 24th Aug., 1981 returnable on the 1st Sept., 1981 the plaintiff prays that a final judgment be passed against the defendant for the amount claimed in the suit with interest and costs.

5. It is a matter of record that the summons was served on the Advocate on record of the defendant on the 25th Aug. 1981. On the returnable date i.e. the 1st Sept. 1981 the defendant appeared and the matter was adjourned till 15th Sept. 1981. Directions were given for filing of affidavits within the ajourned date. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time. Several directions were obtained in the meantime extending the time for filing of affidavits. The matter was finally heard on the 18th Nov., 1981.

6. Madhushri Gupta, a partner of the defendant has affirmed an affidavit on the 24th Nov. 1981, which has been filed in opposition to this application. It is admitted in this affidavit that the plaintiff had lent and advanced to the defendant the said sum of Rs. 50,000. It is also admitted that the defendant issued a cheque in full and final settlement of the dues of the plaintiff, which was dishonoured. It is, however, alleged that the defendant was informed by the plaintiff of such dishonour, the defendant paid to the plaintiff Rs. 50,000 in cash without receipt. It is alleged further that the said payment was made in cash on the promise of the plaintiff to grant a proper receipt which the plaintiff failed to do.

7. In a further affidavit affirmed on the 25th Nov. 1981 Madhushri Gupta alleges that the plaintiff is a regular and professional money-lender without holding

a valid licence under the Bengal Moneylenders Act. It is contended that, as such, the transaction is illegal, null and void and not binding on the defendant. It is contended further that the application is otherwise not maintainable.

8. At the hearing, learned Advocate for the defendant reiterated the aforesaid contentions of the defendant and also submitted that this application of the plaintiff was not maintainable inasmuch as the plaintiffs summons was not made returnable after giving seven clear days after service of the said summons as required under R.4 of Chap. XIIIA of the Rules of the Original Side of this Court. Learned Advocate contended further that under R.46 of Chap. XXXVIII of the said Rules the Court no doubt has power to enlarge or abridge the time appointed by the said Rules, but so far as the enlargement is concerned the same might be allowed after the expiration of the time. But so far as the abridgement of time was concerned, the same could only be decided initially and not after the summons had been returned.

9. In support of her contentions learned Advocate for the defendant cited Province of Bengal v. Midnapore Zamindari Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1945 Cal 341 where a Division Bench of this Court held that the terms of S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were imperative and admitted of no exception or implication and non-compliance of the provisions of the said section would be fatal to the suit and that a suit filed before the expiry of the period of notice must be held to be premature.

10. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff has con