JONEY Vs. HEMANT VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has assailed judgment and decree dtd. 7/2/2023 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the suit of the respondent under Order XXXVII CPC was decreed for the reason that the appellant failed to file an application for leave to defend. The appellant has also assailed order dtd. 3/4/2024 of the learned Trial Court whereby the application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC filed by the appellant was dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and having examined the record, I find no reason to even issue notice of this appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated, the circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows. The present respondent filed a suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs.4,70,000.00 against the appellant, pleading that the appellant took friendly loan of Rs.4,70,000.00 from him on 5/1/2018 for a period of 07 months against a promissory note and receipt duly executed by the appellant, but despite repeated demands and even issuance of legal notice dtd. 17/8/2018, the appellant did not pay back the loan amount. On this suit, the learned Trial Court issued summons to enter appearance in the format prescribed under Order XXXVII CPC and in compliance the appellant entered appearance. But thereafter, despite service of summons for judgment under Order XXXVII CPC, the appellant opted not to file application seeking leave to defend. Consequently by way of the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 7/2/2023, the respondent was held entitled to recovery of Rs.4,70,000.00 with pendente lite and future interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application dated Nil in March, 2023 under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC, alleging that summons for judgment were not served on the appellant. After perusal of record and hearing both sides, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said application vide the impugned order dtd. 3/4/2024. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant contends that the impugned judgment and decree are not sustainable in the eyes of law because no summons for judgment were served on the appellant. It is contended that the appellant never received the complete copy of paperbook and summons in prescribed format for judgment. No other argument has been advanced.