D.L. MEHTA, J.—Plaintiff-petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated, 25th April, 1989 has preferred this revision petition before this Court. Plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit on the basis of the Hundi said to have been executed by the non-petitioners in his favour.

2. Notice was issued to the defendants under Order 37 Rule-2 for appearance in the Court. Notice was served, on all the three defendants. Defendant No. 2 appeared in person and all defendants were represented by Advocate, Shri Nand Kishore. Rule-2 is only enabling provision in favour of the petitioner plaintiff, which provides that the plaintiff may invoke the provisions of Order-37 for the purpose of invoking the summary character of the suit. It is an admitted position that Mr. Nand Kishore, Advocate represented all the three defendant. Application was moved by the plaintiff on 4.9.87 for the issuance of the summons under Order 37 Rule 3 sub-rule-4. Summons were issued under sub-rule-4 of Rule-3 of Order 37 in form-IV A. One of the defendants, Surendra Prakash was present in the court, as such, summons was served to him in person-through his Advocate, Nand Kishore. Non-petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and non-petitioner No.3 is one of the partners. Mr. Nand Kishore might have suggested to the Court that though, he is representing non-petitioner No. 1 and 3, even then notice may be issued to defendant in person. Suggestions were accepted and the summons were despatched. Summons in Form No. 4 A were served by registered post on 18th March 1988.. It was submitted by the non-petitioners that summons were not served before the trial court as such, the inquiry was made and Post Office reported that acknowledgement receipt is missing. Summons were served on 18.3.88. Inquiry report was made available to the Court before 28th July 1988. On 28th July 1988, the Court passed the order that the registered notices which were sent under Form No. 4 A have been served to respondent No. 1 to 3 as per report of the Post Office. The case may be listed on 12th September 1988. This order was passed in the presence of the Advocate for both the parties. On 12.9.88 the Presiding Officer was not present, as such, the case was adjourned to 26th October 1988. On 26.10.88 the application for leave to appeal was submitted on behalf of the defendants before the Court. However, no application for the condonation of the delay was submitted. On 26th November 1988 application for the condonation of delay was submitted by the defendants. It was submitted therein that he got the information from his Advocate about the submission of he application under sub-rule 5 of rule-3 of Order 37. On 25th November. As such he has submitted the application and prayed that the delay from 26.10.88 to 26.11.88 may be condoned. In support of the said application affidavit of Surendra Prakash, defendant No. 2 was also filed It will not be out of place here to mention that Surendra Prakash submitted one application on 7.10.87 under rule 5 of Order 37 C.P.C. He prayed therein that the plaintiff may be directed to produce the original documents and, in case, the prayer is not accepted the suit may be tried as regular suit.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule-3 of Order 37 lays down the procedure in summary suit. In a summary suit the plaintiff has to serve on the defendant alongwith summons under Rule-2, a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto. After the service the defendant may enter appearance by person or by his pleader on any date on such service There is no particular form prescribed for entering appearance. When the defendant puts appearance, under rule-2 the plaintiff has to serve thereafter a summon for judgment in Form No 4A in Appendix-B, returnable not less than 10 days from the date of service In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the defendants put appearance under rule-2 and, thereafter the application was moved for the service of summons for judgment in form No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document