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 a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document