ORDER

M.K. Sharma, J. As these two appeals involve identical facts and similar issues, we propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common order.

FAO (OS) 75/1995

2. This appeal preferred by the defendant is directed against the impugned judgment dated 24 1 1995 dismissing the application filed by the appellant defendant under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 22.3.1990 in the suit filed by the plaintiff bank numbered as Suit No. 2941/1988.

3. The respondent bank as plaintiff filed a suit being Suit No. 2941/1988 against the appellant defendant claiming a sum of Rs. 11,91,708.70p, with interest and cost under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said suit, notices were issued to the appellant defendant. On notices having been served on Shri Vinay Kapoor in accordance with the provisions of Order 29 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said service was accepted as valid service. As the defendant appellant failed to contest the suit, an ex parte decree for a sum of Rs. 111,91,708.70p was passed by the learned Single Judge in the suit on 22.3.1990 holding that the appellant defendant was liable to pay the said sum together with interest and cost till the realisation of the decretal amount.

4. After the appellant came to know about the aforesaid ex parte decree it filed an application under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for setting aside the ex parte decree.The said application filed by the appellant defendant under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken up for consideration and after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge by his order dated 24.1.1995 rejected the application and maintained the ex parte decree against which the present appeal has been preferred.

FAO (OS) 76/1995

5. This appeal preferred by the appellant defendant is against the impugned judgment dated 24.1.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the application filed by the defendant appellant under the provisions of Order 3 7 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 8.5.1990 passed against the appellant in Suit No.1215/88.

6. The respondent plaintiff bank filed a suit being Suit No. 1215/1988 against the appellant defendant claiming a sum of Rs. 15,84,267.70p under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said suit, notice having been issued and the same having been served on Mrs. Khosla, the same was accepted as valid service within the meaning of Order 29 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the appellant defendant failed to put in entry/appearance in the suit though it was served, the learned Single Judge proceeded in the suit and an ex parte decree was passed by the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit holding that the appellant defendant was liable to pay the said sum together with interest and cost till the realisation of the decretal amount.

7. After the appellant came to know about the aforesaid ex parte decree, it filed an application under Order 37 Rule 4 before the learned Single Judge seeking for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit.The learned Single Judge took up the aforesaid application for consideration and after hearing the parties rejected the said application and maintained the ex parte decree passed, as against which the present appeal has been preferred.

8. Before proceeding to deal with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the merit of the case, we would like to consider the issue with regard to the maintainability of the present appeals.Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down a special procedure for trial of suits in a summary procedure. A suit falling in clauses of suits specified by Rule 2( 1) could be filed at the option of the plaintiff either as a