Court clarified that in summary suits, defendants who appear must be afforded the opportunity to contest judgments through proper procedures, adhering to provisions of Order 37 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. These are two revision petitions filed by the petitioner to assail two separate orders dated 25.02.2019 passed by learned trial Court, in Civil Suit No.139-2018, titled ‘Devender Singh vs. Surender @ Maani’ and Civil Suit No.138-2018, titled ‘Devender Singh vs. Krishan’, whereby, applications under Order 37 Rule 3 Sub-rule 4 CPC, filed in both the suits, were dismissed.

The essential facts, as culled out, are as follows:-

2. That, the petitioner-plaintiff had filed two suits for recovery of Rs.2,25,500/- each from respondents-defendants-Surender @ Maani and Krishan, on the assertions (in both the suits) about respondents-defendants having borrowed an amount of Rs.2,25,500/-, on 03.11.2017, from the petitioner-plaintiff and had executed respective pronote and receipts, in view of the said borrowed amount. The pronote and receipts were executed on 03.11.2017. Since, the suit was under Order 37 CPC, the summons under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC, in form No.4-A, were sent to the respondents- defendants and the same were received by them on 28.08.2018. Thereupon, on 11.10.2018, the respondents had put in appearance and the cases were adjourned further for filing of written statements.

3. However, the respondents had not filed any applications for seeking leave to defend. Even, written statements were not filed. It was on 16.10.2018, the applications were filed by the petitioner under Order 37 Rule 3 Sub-rule 4 CPC, for issuing summons for judgment to the respondents-defendants, as they have entered appearance before the Court. The copy of the applications is Annexure P-3 (in both the cases). Therein, it was asserted that the respondents-defendants had entered their appearance before the Court through Advocate. They have no defence in the suits, as the amount claimed, has not been paid by the respondents-defendants to the petitioner-plaintiff. In the given circumstances, the petitioner-plaintiff had sought issuance of summons for judgment to the respondents-defendants, in terms of Order 37 Rule 3 Sub-rule 4 CPC.

4. However, the respondents-defendants had appeared but did not file reply. Rather, it was pleaded on their behalf that no money was borrowed from the petitioner-plaintiff and they have been implicated in the suits falsely.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties, learned trial Court has passed the impugned orders and paragraph No.5 and 6 of the impugned orders, is reproduced, as herein given:-

“5. Perusal of the suit shows that there is no evidence except the pronote which established the facts given in the plaint. No prima-facie relation is mentioned in the plaint to prove the facts of giving money to the respondent-defendant. In the present scenario, the money given to any person in a business transaction or loan is given through cheque or by way of banking transaction as in the present lis, the amount involved is more than two lacs rupees and is to be given to the defendant through banking transaction such as RTGS or by way of cheque. No such evidence is placed on file to prove any type of these banking transactions.

6. Keeping in view of the facts discussed above, the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 Sub Rule 4 of CPC is declined and the defendant is permitted to file written statement on the date fixed.”

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the revision petitions in hand.

7. Upon notice, respondents made appearance through counsel. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

8. From the copies of the plaints, brought on record, it is evident that suits have been filed under Order 37 CPC, which provides for a summary procedure, in respect