MAHAVIR CHAND MEHTA Vs. SHOBHA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of filing this petition is claiming the following reliefs :-

(2.) The petitioner-plaintiff filed a summary suit under Order 37 Rule 2 CPC against the respondent-defendant and prayed for a decree of a sum of Rs.10, 70, 000/- in total with interest @ 10% per annum. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that erroneously wrong notices for general proceedings were sent to respondent-defendant instead of sending notices for summary proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitionerplaintiff had sought decree as the respondent had not complied with the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3(4) & 3(5) of CPC. The learned trial court has ordered the suit proceedings by taking written statement produced by the respondent on record by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner has harped upon the fact that the rigors of Order 37 are in a very tight legislative language, therefore, the respondents could not have been permitted to file his written statement and the suit ought to have been decreed.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent pointed out that as per Appendix-B, the petitioner has filed summons at Sr. No.2, which are for general proceedings and the same were issued by learned court below and for no fault of respondent he cannot be put in tight rigors of Order 37. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the technical process of Order 37 would come into existence only if Appendix-B Summon No.4 was issued to the respondents. To strengthen his argument, counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vasudev Chenoy Vs. T. Jagan Mohan, (1981) LawSuit(AP) 237, relevant partition whereof reads as follows :