ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant regular first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XXXVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 10th February, 2020.

2. The facts of the instant petition are as under:

a. The appellant no. 1 namely Mr. Loveneet Singh is engaged in the business of sale of mobile phones under the name and style of M/s Dashment Jee Telecom, i.e., the appellant no. 3 herein.

b. The respondent, i.e., the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court had filed a summary suit bearing CS DJ no. 77/2019, under Order XXXVII of the CPC against the present appellants, i.e., the defendants before the learned Trial Court, for recovery of Rs. 30,00,000/- along with pendent-

lite and future interest and costs.

c. In the above said civil suit, the respondent had pleaded that the parties were in a friendly relation with each other and as the appellants were facing some financial difficulties in running the aforesaid business, they approached the respondent for a friendly loan. It is upon failure of the appellants to repay the said loan amount that the respondent filed the aforementioned suit.

d. In the suit, the summons were issued to the appellants subsequent to which the appellants filed an application under Order XXXVII of the CPC, thereby, putting their appearance.

e. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff moved an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (4) of the CPC for issuance of summons for judgment and consequently, summons for judgment were issued to the appellants which were served on 22nd May, 2019.

f. Subsequently, the appellants on 10th July, 2019, filed an application seeking leave to defend the suit along with an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (7) read with Section 151 of the CPC for condonation of delay. Thereafter, the respondent in addition to filing his reply to the above said application filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 5 of the CPC for attachment before judgment and another application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC seeking interim injunction against the appellants to not to sell their ancestral property.

g. Thereafter, the application filed by the appellants seeking leave to defend being devoid of any merit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, for failure of the appellants to show sufficient cause for delay in filing, and vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 10th February, 2020 the aforementioned summary suit was decreed in favour of the respondent.

h. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have approached this Court seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court is bad in law and being devoid of any merit, is liable to be set aside.

4. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the summons of judgment under order XXXVII Rule 3 of the CPC sent on 15th May, 2019 were not received by the appellants on 22nd May, 2019, rather, the same were received by one of the part time employees of the appellant no. 1. It is further submitted that the aforesaid summons came to the knowledge of the appellant no. 1 only on 29th June, 2016 while searching for some records/documents.

5. It is submitted that whilst passing the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Court below failed to appreciate the appellants‟ argument that during the period of service of the summon, the appellant no. 1 was in receipt of a large number of summons, legal notices due to his financial crises.

6. It is submitted that when the summons came to the knowledge of the appellant no. 1, he immediately informed his counsel who happened to be out of India and was supposed to come back later by the evening of 29th June, 2019.

7. It is further submitted that post 29th June, 2019 as well, the counsel for the appell