Najmi Waziri, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24th September, 2012 (“impugned order”) of the Additional District Judge – I, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (“Trial Court”). The impugned order came to be passed upon an application under Order XXXVII rule 4 (“Application”) of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure (“Code”) by the petitioner (who was defendant) in Suit 281/11 (“Suit”), which was filed under Order XXXVII of the Code. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court rejected the Application, holding that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any special circumstances justifying setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 7th December, 2011.

2. Although extensive arguments were made by the respondent as to the maintainability of the petition, this Court finds it unnecessary to consider the same in detail. The petitioner has preferred the petition under Article 227 to contend, primarily, that (i) the summons was actually never served upon him and (ii) the Suit was not maintainable and ought to not be considered under Order XXXVII of the Code. The respondent contended that the petition is not maintainable inasmuch as an appeal would be maintainable against the decree. This Court does not wish to opine on whether an appeal would have been maintainable against the impugned order, although the Rajasthan High Court has, in one matter, held the same in the negative. Mohan Lal v Om Prakash, AIR 1989 Raj 138, at p. 184. The proceedings having been instituted under Article 227, this Court shall consider the same under the said provision, while bearing in mind the inherent as well as self-imposed limitations on the powers of superintendence, and refrain from converting itself into a court of appeal. Surya Devi Rai v Ram Chander Rai & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 675.

Facts

3. The genesis of the dispute, according the Suit, can be traced to an agreement in the form of a letter of offer from the respondent to the petitioner, dated 16th July, 2010 (“letter of offer”). The letter offered to the petitioner an appointment to the position of Executive Trainee (Civil) in the respondent’s organisation, and to undergo a course for a Post-Graduate Diploma in Metro Technology and Management, at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. The training was to be at the risk and cost of the respondent, who further offered an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) per mensem as stipend for the duration of the training. The letter of offer further provided that upon successful completion of the training, the petitioner shall be appointed as Assistant Manager (Civil) at a pay scale of Rs. 26,000 - 46,500/- (Rupees twenty six thousand to forty six thousand five hundred only) by issuance of a formal letter of appointment (“appointment assured”).

4. The letter of offer contained certain other clauses that are relevant to the dispute:

4.1. That the petitioner shall execute a deed, termed as a “bond”, binding himself to serve the respondent for a period of five years from his date of joining the course. Further, in the eventuality of the petitioner being dismissed for serious misconduct, the bond shall be forfeit.

4.2. That the petitioner ought to obtain the Diploma by scoring the minimum percentage of marks or more, as required by the Institution. If the petitioner fails to secure the minimum percentage required to obtain the Diploma, he will not be provided the appointment assured. The petitioner, in this eventuality, ought to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only), which is termed as “bond amount”.

4.3. That the petitioner ought to maintain inter alia discipline, good conduct, and 100% attendance at the institution for the duration of the course; absence, if any, ought to be authorised by the respondent. In case anything adverse is received from the institution in respect of the p