UNREPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 318/2006 DATE OF RESERVE: September 18, 2008 DATE OF DECISION: November 27, 2008 M/S. DOLLARMINE EXPORTS PVT.LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.H.S.Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kanwar Faisal and Ms.Vijaishree Dubey, Advocates. versus M/S. M.B.INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J. 1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for recovery of a sum of Rs.39,39,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand only) on the basis of two cheques drawn on the Corporation Bank, Greater CS(OS) 318/2006 Page 1 of 5 Kailash, New Delhi, that is, cheque bearing No.924023 dated 01.03.2003 for Rs.12,75,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs Seventy Five Thousand only) and cheque bearing No.924024 dated 01.03.2003 for Rs.13,25,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Twenty Five Thousand only), which were dishonoured on presentation. 2. Summons of the suit issued to the defendant were duly served on the defendant, but the defendant failed to enter appearance in the suit, though memo of appearance was filed on behalf of the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application seeking to serve Summons for judgment upon the defendant in Form 4A in Appendix-B. On 30 th November, 2007, this Court ordered the Summons for judgment to be delivered upon the defendant at the address given in the memo of appearance filed on behalf of the defendant. 3. The summons for judgment were sought to be served on the defendant by ordinary process as well as by Registered Acknowledgment Due Post. The report of the process server was received in respect of the summons issued through ordinary process that the summons had been refused by the defendant on one pretext or the other, despite repeated visits made by the process server, i.e., on 20.05.2008, 14.07.2008 and 22.08.2008. The summons for judgment sent to the defendant by registered A/D post were also received back with the report of “Refusal”, duly stamped by the postal authorities. CS(OS) 318/2006 Page 2 of 5 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, Mr.H.S.Phoolka, the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for in the suit under Order XXXVII CPC filed by him. 5. It is well settled that Order XXXVII CPC is a self-contained Code in itself. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 clearly postulates that summons, notices and other judicial processes, required to be served on the defendant, shall be deemed to have been duly served on him, if they are left at the address given by him for such service. In the instant case, summons for judgment were sought to be served on the defendant, but the registered envelope containing the Summons for judgment was received back with the report of refusal. The report of the postal authorities and the report of the process server of this Court bear testimony to the fact that the defendant deemed it expedient not to accept the summons for judgment delivered to him at his address. The inevitable corollary, by virtue of the provisions of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 CPC, is that the said Summons for judgment must be deemed to have been duly served on him at the address given by him for such service. 6. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII CPC provides that the defendant may at any time within 10 days from the date of service of summons for judgment, apply for leave to defend the suit. CS(OS) 318/2006 Page 3 of 5 7. Sub-Rule (6A) to Rule 3 mandates that at the hearing of such Summons for judgment, if the defendant has not applied for leave to defend the suit or if such application has been made and refused, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a judgment forthwith. It is not in dispute that no application for leave to defend has been filed by the defendant. 8. It must be borne in mind that in a suit under Order XXXVII CPC, the defendant is served twice over, first with Summons of the suit in the prescribed form and thereafter, with the Summons for judgment. In the instant case, on the first occasion, the Summons of the suit were duly served upon the defendant. On the second occasion, the defendant, knowing fully well the implication of accepting the summons for judgment, refused to accept the same. As per Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XXXVII CPC, if summons, notices or any judicial processes are left at the address, there is presumption of service. In the instant case, such presumption becomes stronger in view of the fact that the summons have been brought to the notice of the defendant and the defendant has refused acceptance of the same. The process of service is complete and the defendant having chosen not to file any application for leave to defend the suit, the plaintiff is held to be entitled to the decree prayed for by it in the suit in accordance with the provisions of Sub Rule (6A) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII CPC. CS(OS) 318/2006 Page 4 of 5 9. Consequently, the suit is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of the prayer made by the plaintiff in the suit. The Registry shall draw up a decree sheet accordingly. CS(OS) 318/2006 stands disposed of in the above terms. REVA KHETRAPAL, J November 27, 2008 dc CS(OS) 318/2006 Page 5 of 5