IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6349 of 2005. Date of Decision: 23rd April, 2009. Piara Singh Petitioner through None Versus M/s Jodhpur Brick Kiln & Ors. Respondents through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24.10.2005 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Patti whereby leave to defend has been granted to the respondent-defendants. The petitioner has filed a civil suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs.10,20,700/- on the basis of a bank cheque. It appears from the record that at one stage the respondent/defendants did not appear despite service and were proceeded against ex-parte. The ex-parte proceedings were, however, set aside on the ground that they were never served. On the same premise that the respondent/defendants “were never served in a proper manner” the impugned order dated 24.10.2005 has been passed by the learned trial Court after making one more observation that “the defendants have raised the point that there was no dealing of the plaintiff with the defendants and the suit is frivolous”. This, according to the trial Court, is a plausible defence warranting adjudication. Suffice it to say that the impugned order is bereft of reasons and does not stand to the scrutiny of well defined parameters within which leave to defend in a recovery suit filed under Order XXXVII CPC can be granted. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.10.2005 is set aside and if the suit is still pending, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the said application afresh, in accordance with law. April 23, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE