2025:HHC:38520 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 52 of 20P25 Reserved on: 07.11.2025 Date of decision 1H7.11.2025.

Usha Sharma ...Petitioner.

Versus Naresh Bhuarindra ...Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approvedu for reporting?1No.

For the petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Sipahiya Mr. Tarun Mehta, Advocates.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge:

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has taken exception to order dated 4.12.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Solan in CMA No. 653 of 2022 in Civil Suit No. 167 of 2022.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest against the respondent/defendant in the Court of learned Senior Civil

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Judge, Solan, under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). It is alleged in Pthe suit that the respondent/defendant has issued a che.que favouring petitioner/plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Solan in forder to discharge his liability. It was dishonoured on the ground that the respondent/defendant ditd not have sufficient funds in the account.

3. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 4.12.2024 has granted leave to defend the respondent/defendant. In pursuance thereto, the respondent/defendant has filed the written statement and plaintiff has filed replication. The suit is now stated to be fixed for framing of issues on 16.12.2025.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff has assailed the impugned order on the grounds, firstly that the respondent/defendant had failed to enter appearance in terms of Order 37 Rule 3 (1) of the Code, secondly no defence carving out any triable issue had been raised by the respondent/defendant and lastly, the learned trial Court should have put the respondent/defendant to terms while granting the leave to defend. P 5. Perusal of the documents plac.ed on record reveals that on 17.6.2022, the learned trial Court had ordered issuance of notice to thef respondent/defendant, returnable for 25.7.2022. Notice was ordered to be issued in special format of sumtmary case under Order 37 of the Code. The summon was issued on 18.6.2022 and was served upon the respondent/defendant on 28.6.2022.

6. Though, the respondent/defendant was required to enter appearance within ten days of the service of summon but as per record, he had appeared through his counsel for the first time on 25.7.2022. Thereafter, the respondent/defendant had availed number of opportunities to file application for seeking leave to defend, which finally was filed on 17.8.2022. Thereafter, it was the petitioner/plaintiff, who got the matter adjourned till 9.8.2023, when reply to application for leave to defend was filed.

7. Another fact which is evident from the record is that though the respondent/defendant had not entered appearance in terms of Order 37 Rule 3 (1), the petitioner/ plaintiff had also not pressed before the learnePd trial Court for passing of decree against the respondent./ defendant at that stage of the proceedings.

8. Summons for judgmfent in Form-4A in Appendix-B were also not served by the plaintiff on the defendant. t

9. Order 37 Rule 3 (7) vests the Court with jurisdiction to excuse the delay of defendant in entering appearance or in applying for leave to defend the suit. Thus, any delay on part of the defendant in entering appearance was excusable. In this view of the matter, the non-entering of appearance by defendant within ten days was not fatal for him, in all circumstances.

10. As noticed above, the petitioner/plaintiff herself did not comply with the provisions of Order XXXVII and thus, she has no right to seek strict adherence of such provisions against the respondent/defendant.

11. Further, the learned trial Court has found substance in the defence raised by the respondent/ defendan