Timely appearance in court is essential under the CPC, and failure to comply without justifiable reasons can lead to dismissal of applications for condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

'(a) That the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 14.02.2023 i.e. Annexure-P/4 may kindly be quashed and set aside; and

(b) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the application filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed as prayed for in the interest of justice;

(c) Any other writ, direction or order which is deemed to be just and proper in the circumstances of this case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(d) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of petitioner.'

2. As per the pleaded facts, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit, before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, under Order 37 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,69,918/-. The learned Trial Court issued summons on 17.08.2022 to the petitioner-defendant for his appearance before the Court.

2.1 However, the petitioner-defendant could not appear before the learned trial court in time, as the summons were received (taamil) by his daughter on 01.09.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner defendant filed an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in putting his appearance before the Court, in pursuance of the summons order.

2.2 The learned trial court, however, vide the impugned order dated 14.02.2023, rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner-defendant had failed to appear before the Court in time, as required under Order 37 Rule 2/3 CPC, and for the said delay, no justifiable reason was given by the petitioner. Thus, aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present petition has been preferred, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner-defendant submitted that the summons order was not received by the petitioner-defendant, instead the same was received by his daughter on 01.09.2022. Learned counsel gave further reasons for non-appearance of the petitioner-defendant before the learned trial court; firstly, that the petitioner-defendant was out of station during that period in connection with his business and; secondly, he was busy in taking care of his 80 years old mother, who was in poor health, which was the main reason for the delay in appearance.

3.1 It was further submitted that the petitioner-defendant made his appearance before the learned trial court on 21.09.2022 i.e. after a delay of 10 days only.

3.2 It was also submitted that the respondent-plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,69,918/- against the petitioner-defendant, and thus, in the interest of justice and according to the principle of equity, both the parties ought to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard. It was asserted that there were legit reasons, which caused the delay in making appearance before the learned trial court, in a time bound manner.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondentplaintiff, while vehemently opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-defendant, submitted that the learned trial court issued summons on 17.08.2022, which were received by the petitioner-defendant's daughter on 01.09.2022; however, despite the same, instead of appearing within 10 days as per the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3 CPC, the petitionerdefendant did not appear before the learned trial court in time, and it was only after a delay of 20 days i.e. on 21.09.2022, that the petitioner-defendant appeared before the learned trial court.

4.1 It was asserted that on the date fixed by the learned trial court, since the concerned Court Clerk did not place summons served upon the petitioner-defendant in the Court file, therefore, for want of the service of summons, the matter was being adjourned on 28.09.2022 and 15.10.2022; after placing of the served summons in the Court file on 20.10.2022, it was argued that the petitioner-defendant did not put in his