petitioner-plaintiff submitted that suit under Order 37 of CPC for recovery of `74,750/- was filed. Defendants No.2 and 3 appeared and filed two applications for taking defence of appearance and for condonation of delay and the case was adjourned to 02.08.2016 for filing reply. The aforementioned fact is evident from the orders dated 02.08.2016 (Annexures P-3 and P-4). On 10.08.2016, the trial Court heard the arguments on the applications and case was fixed for 23.08.2016. On 23.09.2016, the petitioner came to know that the trial Court had announced the order on the same very day after lunch granting the permission to the defendants to appear and also granted leave to file written statement. In fact, no arguments on said application were addressed. Even otherwise, as per the provisions of sub-clauses (4) and (5) of Rule 3 of Order 37 of CPC on appearance of the defendants, the plaintiff is required to serve the defendants a summon for judgment in Form No.4A in Appendix B, returnable not less than ten days from the date of service supported by an affidavit and the defendants at any time within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, required to apply for leave to defend. The aforementioned provisions have not been adhered to and therefore, the order under challenge is fallacious.
