KARPAL SINGH Vs. SARDAR LAKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated July 25, 1980 of the District Judge, Bhilwara passed in Civil Original Suit No. 6 of 1980.

(2.) A few facts leading to this revision may be noted, The plaintiff non -petitioner instituted a suit for Rs. 14,980/ - on the basis of two pro -notes, which are said to have been executed by the defendant -petitioner. The suit appears to have been filed under Order XXXVII, Rule 2, C.P.C. The summons dated January 28, 1980 was issued and served on the defendant -petitioner on January 29, 1980. On the to of the summons TARIKH PESHI mentioned was March 7, 1980. The defendant went to engage a counsel for appearing in court for March 7, 1980. After seeing the summons, the counsel told him that he should have appeared with in 10 days of the service of the summons. The defendant appeared in Court on March 7, 1980, and submitted an application under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(7), C.P.C. stating the cause for not appearing within 10 days from the date of service of the summons and prayed for excusing the delay caused in entering appearance in Court. The reason that was mentioned in the application was that the defendant was misled by the date which was mentioned on the top of the summons as March 7, 1980. This he took to be the date on which he was required to appear in Court. The plaintiff non -petitioner opposed the application. The learned District Judge. Bhilwara by his order dated July 25, 1980 dismissed the application of the defendant -petitioner holding that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(7), C.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has come up in revision to this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) I have heard Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Sa1uja, learned Counsel for the non -petitioner. It was stated by both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that the revision petition may finally be disposed of and this court while issuing show cause notice specifically mentioned that 'why this revision petition be not admitted and allowed.'