HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. In the present revision petition, challenge has been laid by the petitioner to an order dated 10.09.2009 passed by the learned ADJ, allowing the application for condonation of delay filed by the respondents (defendants in the court below) in a summary suit for recovery filed by the petitioner (plaintiff in the court below) under the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-. Before proceeding to deal with the grounds taken by the petitioner to assail the impugned order, it would be necessary to briefly advert to the sequence of events resulting in passing of the said order.

2. On 19.05.2009, the petitioner (plaintiff in the court below) instituted a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC praying inter alia for a decree of Rs.5,40,000/- with interest against the respondents (defendants in the court below).

The aforesaid suit was registered by the learned ADJ on 20.05.2009 and summons were directed to be issued in the prescribed format to the defendants on filing of process fee and registered cover, returnable on 31.07.2009. A perusal of the trial court record shows that while the respondents/defendants remained unserved by ordinary process, service was duly effected on them by Registered Post. A perusal of the Registered AD covers placed on the record shows that the same were dispatched from the post office at Patiala House, New Delhi on 25.05.2009, but the date of receipt of the summons is not indicated on the AD covers.

3. On 31.07.2009, counsels for the parties were present in Court. Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents/defendants and prayed for some time to file the written statement. The order dated 31.07.2009 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “Suit No.756/09 Present: Counsels for the parties Defendants have been duly served in this case. Sh. Raj Kumar Yadav has put in his appearance on behalf of defendants and prays for some time to file the WS. Let the same be filed by next date of hearing i.e. 20.08.09. (Ina Malhotra) Add. District Judge South-II PHC: New Delhi 31.07.09” The record reflects that a Vakalatnama dated 31.07.2009, on behalf of the respondents/defendants was duly filed on the same date.

4. On 31.07.2009, counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC, stating inter alia that as the respondents/defendants had not entered appearance within the stipulated period of ten days from the date of service of the summons upon them, the petitioner/plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the sum, mentioned in the plaint. He submitted that as the suit had been filed under the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC, counsel for the respondents/defendants had wrongly taken time to file the written statement. Vide order dated 4.8.2009, notice of the aforesaid application was issued to the respondents/defendants through counsel, returnable on the date fixed, i.e., 20.08.2009. On 20.08.2009, counsels for the parties were present. As notice of the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff could not be served upon the defendants’ counsel, the same was accepted by him in Court and the matter was adjourned to 04.09.2009 for arguments.

5. On 04.09.2009, the respondents/defendants submitted their reply to the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC. They also filed an application for condonation of delay in entering appearance in the suit on the same date. The learned ADJ passed the following order :- “Suit No.756/09 Present: Counsels for the parties Reply has been filed by the defendant to the plaintiff’s application under Order 37 Rule 2(3) CPC. An application has also been filed for condoning the delay by the defendant. Further till date, no proper appearance has been filed in terms of the requirement of Order 37 CPC, therefore the same is not maintainable. Adjourned to 10.09.09 for further proceedings.

(Ina Malhotra)