C.R. No.4674 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4674 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.08.2009 Arun Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Prithvi Parashar ...Respondent Present: Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The revision is against an order rejecting the plea made on behalf of the defendant for condonation of delay in moving the application for entering appearance. The suit admittedly had been filed under the provisions of Order 37 CPC as a summary procedure and the summons had been served on 17.03.1999. The defendant had not entered appearance nor did he apply for a leave to defend. The Court did not proceed under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC to treat the plaintiff's claim as admitted but proceeded to set the defendant ex parte and posted the case on 02.06.1999. The application had been moved for setting aside the ex parte order on the same day on 02.06.1999, but he filed an application for condonation of delay under Order 38 Rule 3 (7) in entering appearance nearly 1 ½ years later. The Court found that the summons had been admittedly received and the contention that there was no valid service was not correct. It also found that there was a delay of more than C.R. No.4674 of 2003 (O&M) -2- one and half years in applying to the Court for condoning the delay in entering appearance and accordingly, dismissed his application. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the actual appearance had been made even on 02.06.1999 and the petition for setting aside the ex parte order had also been made on the same day on 02.06.1999 but only the application to condone the delay came to be filed. According to him, direction for payment of costs would be appropriate penalty that could be imposed on the defendant and denying him a right to defend will be extremely harsh. 3. If there had been only an application for leave to defend and the Court did not exercise it discretion, the contention of the learned counsel would merit acceptance. From the records and from the averments made by the counsel, I am able to find that there is till date not even a petition moved for leave to defend the suit. The Court had already found that there had been a valid service of summons. A suit instituted in the year 1999 under the provisions of Order 37 CPC has stood without disposal for nearly a decade by the pendency of one application or the other at the instance of the defendant. It makes the entire proceedings under Order 37 CPC a mockery and to allow the defendant to proceed to trial even when he has not made out a ground for grant of permission to defend will aggravate the problem for plaintiff all the more. 4. There is no ground for interference with the order passed and the civil revision is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 19, 2009 Pankaj*