S. No.29

Regular List

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

CM(M) No. 507/2025

CM No.7633/2025

Date of pronouncement: 15.12.2025

Uploaded on: 17.12.2025

MOHAMMAD YASEEN BHAT

…..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr.Bilal Ahmad Malla, Advocate.

V/s

FAROOQ AHMAD BHAT

… ..Respondent(s)

Through : Mr.Salih Pirzada, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT(Oral)

1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has challenged order dated 10.10.2025, passed by learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, whereby application of the petitioner under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) of CPC seeking condonation of delay in

entering appearance in the suit has been dismissed.

2. It appears that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant under Order XXXVII of CPC seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.4,81,00,000/- alongwith interest. It appears that summons in the prescribed proforma were issued by the learned trial Court for appearance of the defendant and the same was received by the defendant on 19.02.2025. On 05.03.2025, the

defendant filed his memo of appearance in terms of Order XXXVII Rule 3 of CPC, meaning thereby that the defendant had filed his memo of appearance beyond the stipulated period of ten days from the date of service of summons. In fact there was a delay of four days in entering appearance.

3. It seems that the defendant had not filed an application seeking condonation of delay in entering his appearance at the time of filing of memo of appearance, but he did so only on 27.05.2025 after a lapse of more than 2 ½ months. In the said application the defendant pleaded that he is an illiterate person and, as such, was not able to understand the legal technicalities with regard to summons in a summary suit. It was also pleaded by the defendant that he was apprised by the process server that next date of hearing is fixed on 05.03.2025 and that his presence is required on the said date. Accordingly, the defendant entered his appearance before the trial Court on the said date. It was pleaded that delay in appearance of defendant was not deliberate or conscious but was unintentional and accidental.

4. The learned trial Court vide the impugned order declined to condone the delay in filing the memo of appearance primarily on the ground that the defendant has been careless and casual in his approach while pursuing the proceedings, inasmuch as, he has filed application for condonation of delay after a gap of approximately three months after entering appearance.

5. The petitioner/defendant has challenged the impugned order on the ground the learned trial Court has taken a hyper technical view of the matter and has declined to condone the delay of mere four days in entering appearance. It has been contended that the observation of the learned trial Court that there was carelessness on the part of the petitioner/defendant because he filed application for condonation of delay after about three months is not tenable given the fact that there was delay of only four days in filing the memo of appearance, though the application seeking condonation of delay was filed by the petitioner belatedly.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

7. Sub Rule (7) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of CPC vests power with the Court to excuse the delay in entering the appearance if sufficient cause is shown by the defendant.

8. In the present case, there has been a delay of four days on the part of the petitioner/defendant to cause appearance in terms of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII CPC. The explanation tendered by the petitioner/defendant for this delay is that he is an illiterate person and he was told by the process server that next date of hearing in the case has been fixed as 05.03.2025 when he is required to appear before the Court. It is in these circumstances that the defendant instead of filing his memo of appearance within ten days of service of summons upon him, a