UMESH AHUJA Vs. CHARANJIT LAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,50,000/ - along with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum against the appellant herein under provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the basis of a cheque bearing No. 366736 dated 13th November, 2007 for Rs. 2,50,000/ - issued by the appellant for consideration of a friendly loan of the said amount in the month of December, 2005. Trial Court dismissed the application for leave to defend filed by the appellant and decreed the suit for Rs. 2,50,000/ - along with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court met the same fate. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that summons for judgment in the prescribed proforma, as required under Rule 3(4) CPC were never served upon the appellant and therefore, Trial Court could not have decreed the suit of the respondent. He has asserted that under these circumstances, a substantial question of law needs formulation and adjudication.

(3.) There is no dispute that summons for appearance were received by the appellant, in pursuance whereof he filed his appearance in Court on 29th January, 2008. Thereafter respondent moved an application under Order 37 Rule 3(4) CPC seeking orders for service of summons for judgment upon the appellant. Vide order dated 31st May, 2008, Court issued summons for judgment under Order 37 upon respondent's filing process fee and registered cover by ordinary way and the next date of hearing was fixed as 8th October, 2008. It seems that instead of sending summons for judgment in the prescribed proforma i.e. Form No. 4A in Appendix B, Ahalmad of the Court issued summons on the proforma No. 4 prescribed under Rules 2. Summons, so issued did contain claim of the respondent. Process was also issued through registered AD cover.