( 1 ) THIS SUIT INVOLVES THE INTERPRETATION OF ORDER xxxvii AND THE SUMMARY PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED UPON THE service OF STATUTORY SUMMONS ON THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER xxxvii RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (IN short THE `cpc ). THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE eloquently DEMONSTRATE HOW REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES TO THE defendant CAN DEFEAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IN THE NAME OF equity. THE PLAINT IS BASED UPON THE MEMORANDUM OF understanding DATED 1st DECEMBER, 2000, A DOCUMENT IN writing COVERED BY THE POST-DATED CHEQUES FOR A SUM OF rs. 36,00,000/ -.

( 2 ) IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ON 17th FEBRUARY, 2004, THE DEFENDANT WAS DULY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS IN the STATUTORY FORM, AS ENVISAGED UNDER ORDER XXXVII RULE 3 OF THE CPC AND IS REPRESENTED BY MR. PALLAV SISODIA, advocate. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT NO MEMO OF appearance ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN ENTERED thereafter AS POSTULATED UNDER ORDER XXXVII CPC.

( 3 ) SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN out UNDER CLAUSE (4) OF ORDER XXXVII RULE 3 CPC. THE order XXXVII RULE 3 CPC READS AS UNDER:-

"3. PROCEDURE FOR THE APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT -- (1) IN A SUIT TO WHICH THIS ORDER APPLIES, THE PLAINT