C.R.No.6203 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6203 of 2007. Decided on: September 07, 2009. Hari Nand .. Petitioner VERSUS Dinesh Kakar and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Jagdish Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is a defendant in a suit for recovery of Rs.59,700/- with interest, filed by Dinesh Kakar, plaintiff-respondent No.1, under Order 37 CPC. The application for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the application for leave to defend has been dismissed by the trial Court. Despite notice having been served upon plaintiff- respondent No.1, no one has put in appearance. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defendant-petitioner has got a substantial defence to raise and the . . . 1 C.R.No.6203 of 2007 defence intended to be put up by the petitioner is neither frivolous nor vexatious. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs.35,000/- on 08.12.2002, from Munna Lal and others. Munna Lal is the father of plaintiff Dinesh Kakar and they are in the habit of retaining the cheques obtained by them as security and misusing the cheques after receiving the loan amounts. In this context, a complaint has been lodged by number of creditors before the police. Petitioner had also obtained a loan and returned the same but the cheque given as security has been misused though the liability stands already discharged by the petitioner. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, without expression of any opinion on the merits, it is sufficient to observe that a defendant is required, at any time within 10 days, from the service of summons by affidavit or otherwise disclosing the facts which are deemed sufficient to enable him to defend the suit under Order 37 CPC, and obtain the leave to defend subject to the conditions imposed by the Court. The legislature in its wisdom has provided Order 37 Rule 3, sub-rule 7, wherein a Court has been given power to ignore the delay of the defendant in entering appearance or in applying for leave to defend if sufficient cause is shown by the defendant. The object of the said provision is to give a fair opportunity to a defendant in a suit under Order 37 CPC, to apply for condonation of delay in entering appearance or to apply for leave . . . 2 C.R.No.6203 of 2007 to defend. After going through the order passed by the trial Court, I am of the opinion that though sufficient reasons have not been established by the defendant-petitioner but good reasons exist to enable him to put forth the defence which he intends to raise for seeking leave to defend. The revision petition is allowed. Interim order dated 17.10.2007, is hereby set aside. The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on 19.09.2009, for further proceedings. The delay in filing of the application for leave to defend is hereby condoned. The trial Court will proceed in accordance with law w.e.f., 19.09.2009, by adopting the procedure laid down under Order 37, Rule 3 CPC. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE September 07, 2009. rka . . . 3