THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.C.C.A.No.168 of 2000 and C.R.P.No.5368 of 2001 21st January, 2011 Between :- M/s.Jaico Investments Rep. By its proprietor M/s.Shree Gokul Ispat Udyog Pvt.Ltd. Mr.Dinesh Kabra ..Appellant And M/s.Teerath Finance Pvt.Ltd. Rep. By on of its Director B.Jagdish ..Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.C.C.A.No.168 of 2000 and C.R.P.No.5368 of 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT:- (Per B.Seshasayana Reddy, J) These two proceedings arise out of the Judgment/Order passed in O.S.No.131 of 1999 on the file of the I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The appellant-petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.131 of 1999. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit under Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 read with Order XXXVII of C.P.C. for recovery of Rs.7,68,964/- with interest thereon. The details of the plaint are not required to be elaborated in view of the order proposed to be passed. It is suffice to say that the appellant-defendant filed I.A.No.873 of 2000 under Section 148 of C.P.C. seeking extension of time for filing petition to leave to defend the suit. The learned I-Additional Chief Judge dismissed the application on the ground that Section 148 of C.P.C. does not empower the Court to extend time for filing petition to leave to defend in a summary suit. Consequent on the dismissal of the application filed by the defendant, the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed on 14-6-2000. Hence, the defendant filed C.C.C.A.No.168 of 2000 assailing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.131 of 1999. Whereas C.R.P.No.5368 of 2001 is filed assailing the order passed in I.A.No.873 of 2000. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant submits that under Order XXXVII Rule 7 of C.P.C., the procedure in summary suit shall be the same as the procedure in suits instituted in the ordinary manner and therefore the Court has ample power under Section 148 of C.P.C., for enlargement of time. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff supported the Judgment/Order impugned in the appeal/revision. The only issue that calls for adjudication is whether the Trial Court is empowered to grant time for filing application by the defendant to leave to defend. Order XXXVII Rule 3 of C.P.C. deals with the procedure for the appearance of defendant. Sub-Rule (7) thereof reads as hereunder:- “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.” A combined reading of sub-Rule (7) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII and Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of C.P.C. gives no room for doubt that the Trial Court is empowered to extend time to the defendant for leave to defend the suit. The learned I-Additional Chief Judge, on misreading of the provision, came to the conclusion that the Court is not empowered to extend time. Therefore the order passed in I.A.No.873/2000 cannot be sustained. It is a matter of record that the appellant – defendant filed an application seeking extension of time much before service of Judgment summons on him. It is also trite to note that the appellant-defendant have detailed the grounds in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.873 of 2000 seeking extension of time to leave to defend. In the given facts and circumstances, the appellant – defendant made out a valid ground for extension of time to leave to defend. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow two weeks time from today to the appellant – defendant to file an application to leave to defend in the suit. In the result, the appeal and the revision are allowed setting aside the Judgment and Decree and remanding the matter back to the Trial Court so as to enable the appellant – defendant to file an application seeking leave to defend within two weeks from today. Failing of filing the application by the appellant – defendant within the said period, the Judgment and Decree granted in O.S.No.131 of 1999 shall hold good. No costs. ________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J ___________________ P.Durga Prasad, J 21st January, 2011 smr