IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6861 of 2025 VIKRAMADITYA SINGH Versus PRAKASH CHAND GUPTA Appearance:

Ms. Shivali Sharma (through V.C.) and Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocates for petitioner.

ORDER By view of this petition, challenge is made to the orders dated

29.02.2024, 29.08.2025 and 03.09.2025 passed by the trial Court. By the order dated 29.02.2024, the trial Court has rejected application under Order XXXVII Rules 2 and 3 CPC filed by the defendant and taken the written statement of the defendant on record. By the order dated 29.08.2025, the trial Court has framed issues in the case and by order dated 03.09.2025, the trial Court has posted the case for plaintiff's evidence.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff who is aggrieved by the aforesaid order to the extent that the trial Court is proceeding in the matter like a regular suit and that the trial Court is not proceeding ahead in the matter by adopting the procedure of summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the suit has been filed as a summary suit, therefore, the trial Court ought not to have taken the written statement on record and framed the issues, or posted the case for plaintiff's evidence because no leave to defend has been sought by the defendant and in such circumstances, the suit cannot be tried like a regular suit. By placing reliance on the plaint, it is contended that the suit is for recovery of Rs.4,27,60,000/- and it is clearly captioned as a suit under Order XXXVII CPC as it is based upon an agreement and promissory note and is covered under Order XXXVII CPC to be dealt with like a summary suit and the petitioner had filed summary suit by exercising statutory right granted to the petitioner to file a summary suit. However, the trial Court is erroneously proceeding ahead in the suit like a regular suit.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further vehemently argued that the trial Court even did not issue summons in Form-IV in Appendix-B which is required to be issued in case of summary suit and even the notices issued in the case were faulty. It is further argued that the trial Court ought not to have proceeded in the suit in question like an ordinary suit, once no leave to defend has been sought by the defendant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also heavily relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Executive Trading Company Private Limited vs. Grow Well Mercantile Private Limited, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 969 to contend that the procedure being followed by the trial Court is highly faulty and defective.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case, it is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner that the initial notices were issued by the Court on regular form and were not issued in the form contained in Appendix-B and, therefore, there was non-compliance of Order XXXVII Rule 2(2) CPC. However, no copy of such summons has been placed on record that in what manner the summons had been issued to the defendant. Be that as it may be, but the defendant has entered appearance in the suit as far back as on 14.12.2023 and the petitioner did not choose to challenge the order of the Court in issuing summons on regular form because the order of issuing the summons initially was passed in June, 2023 and the defendant appeared in December, 2023.

Therefore, the stage of taking objection of faulty form of summons is over.

7. Even the faulty summons alleged to be issued by the Court is not relevant for the purpose of present petition because the petitioner contends that written statement could not be taken on record, issues could not be framed and the case could not be fixed for evidence because that is not the summary procedure contemplated and the suit is being tried as a regular suit.

8. The petitioner can avoid regular procedure in summary suit onl