RANCHI, India, Oct. 2 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 2:

I.A. No.1000 of 2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 37 days in filing of this civil revision.

3. The reasons assigned in the instant application, which appears to be sufficient, therefore, the delay of 37 days in filing this civil revision is hereby, condoned.

4. I.A. No.1000 of 2024 is allowed.

Civil Revision No.31 of 2023

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission of this revision.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner is plaintiff in O.S. No.388 of 2017 and has instituted the aforesaid suit under Order XXXVII Rule 5 read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the defendant/respondent appeared but filed an application for obtaining leave to contest the suit, which has been unconditionally allowed by the learned trial court. Although, the amount dues in respect of the bills of articles supplied by the present petitioner has been admitted, therefore, impugned order is not valid in view of provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 3 (6)(b) as no security has been directed to deposit by the opposite party/defendant.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the aforesaid provisions are directory and not mandatory and learned trial court has passed reasoned order while permitting to defend unconditionally. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

8. I have gone through the impugned order wherein after institution of the suit under Order XXXVII for recovery of Rs.9,26,480/- towards supply of stationary and goods to the respondent, it appears that after receiving the summons, the opposite party appeared and objected some bills and sought to leave of the court to defend the suit, which has been unconditionally allowed by the impugned order. It further appears that no summons for judgment in Form- 4-A in appendix-B as required under Rule 4 of Order XXXVII was issued rather the points of objections raised by the opposite party/defendant are to be decided by the trial court. It further transpires that Rule 3 (6)(b) of Order XXXVII leads lays down that "If the defendant is permitted to defend as to the whole or any part of the claim, the Court or Judge may direct him to give such security and within such time as may be fixed by the Court or Judge and that, on failure to give such security within the time specified by the Court or Judge or to carry out such other directions as may have been given by the Court or Judge, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith."

It is further provided under Rule 3 (7) "The Court or Judge may, for sufficient cause shown by the defendant, excuse the delay of the defendant in entering an appearance or in applying for leave to defend the suit."

Therefore, the aforesaid provision is appeared to be directory in nature and not mandatory and the impugned order does not comes within purview of "the case decided as per explanation appended to Section 115 of C.P.C."

9. In view of the above, I find no valid reason to entertain this civil revision and interfere with the impugned order, which stands dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.