The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable against an order declining leave to defend a suit under Order 37 of C.P.C., and only a regular and substantive appeal can be filed against such an order.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.06.2017 in I.A.No.9 of 2017 in O.S.No.5259 of 2016 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order dated 21.06.2017 in I.A.No.9 of 2017 in O.S.No.5259 of 2016 passed by the learned XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners seeking leave to defend the suit.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed suit for recovery of money as against the petitioners in O.S.No.5259 of 2016. In the said suit, the petitioners filed petition seeking leave to defend the suit. It was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the suit itself is not maintainable under Order 37 of C.P.C. The first petitioner is the business entity and the second petitioner is the proprietor and therefore, the same person should not have been arraigned twice which is not permissible under law. The respondent caused private notice on 08.12.2016 with a copy of the plaint alone and the plaint documents were not furnished to the petitioners till 02.01.2017. Therefore, the mandatory provisions under Order 37 Rule 3(1) of C.P.C., did not comply with by the respondent. The notice of appearance was sent to the respondent as early as on 08.12.2016 and the respondent did not file summons for judgment till 02.01.2017. On the said day only, the plaint documents were served to the petitioners which is violation of the provisions laid down under Order 37 of C.P.C. Therefore there are so many triable issues available in the present case and it cannot be tried summarily under Order 37 of C.P.C.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there is a specific provision to challenge the order passed under Order 37 Rule 3(1) of C.P.C., by way of appeal and as such this Civil Revision Petition is not at all maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments :-

(i) 2013 (2) LW 949 - Shivsu Canadian Clear International Ltd Vs. Freightcan Global Logistics Pvt. Lt.,

(ii) 2014 (2) CTC 828 - Praveenkumar Vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.,

(iii) 2001 (1) LW 295- Sundaram Mortos Vs. B.Lalitha

(iv) 2009 (2) SCC 432 - Wada Arun Asbestos Pvt Ltd., Vs. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage

(v) 2013 (2) MWN (Civil) 663 - S Sudha Vs. Rangaswamy Builders Pvt. Ltd.

(vi) CRP.No.4975 of 2014 - M Ilambaranthi Vs. Matrix Cellurar (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.,

(vii) 2008 (14) SCC 457 - Southern Sales and Services and others Vs. Sauermilch Design and Handels

(viii) 2007 (2) SCC 275 - Ajay Bansal Vs. Anup Mehta & ors.

(ix) 2004 (74) DRJ 65 - VS Saini & Ors Vs. DCM Ltd.

5. Heard Mr.A.Thirumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Subhang P.Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable as against the order passed under Order 37 Rule 3 of C.P.C. If an order declining leave to defend a summary suit, thereby making a judgment inevitable can be attacked in a Revision and also in an Appeal, it would lead to the anomalous situation where the summary suit becomes more tedious and time consuming than an ordinary action for recovery of money.

7. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 (2) SCC 275 in the case of Ajay Bansal Vs. Anup Mehta & ors as follows:-

“12. A decree passed in a summary suit where leave to defend the suit has been refused is almost automatic. The consequence of passing a decree cannot be avoided.

13. Ordinarily, an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable where an appeal li