Madras High Court
I Gulzar Ahmed vs P.Sesha on 15 April, 2021
CRP.NPD.No.384 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.No.384 of 2018
and
CMP.No.2066 of 2018
I Gulzar Ahmed ..Petitioner
Vs.
P.Sesha ..Respondent
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC
against the fair and decretal order dated 18.07.2017 in IA.No.61 of
2017 in OS.No.1620 of 2017 passed by the XVII Additional City Civil
Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumaran
For Respondent : M/s.R.Nirmala Devi
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and
decretal order dated 18.07.2017 passed in IA.No.61 of 2017 in
OS.No.1620 of 2017 passed by the XVII Additional City Civil Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.384 of 2018
Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition filed for converting the
summary suit into ordinary suit.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the
respondent herein. The respondent filed suit for recovery of money
under Order 37 of CPC to try the suit summarily. The petitioner was
served with summon and he entered appearance through his counsel.
But the petitioner failed to file any petition to grant leave to defend the
suit as contemplated under Order 37 Rule 3 of CPC. Therefore, the
respondent filed petition in IA.No.61 of 2017 to decree the suit as
prayed for. While pending the said petition, the petitioner filed petition
for converting the summary suit into ordinary suit for the reason that
he was served only with copy of summon without copy of the affidavit
as well as copy of plaint documents. Therefore, the petitioner was not
able to file petition to grant leave to defend the suit. As per Order 37
Rule 3 of CPC is concerned, when the suit summon was served to the
defendant, he has to enter appearance and they shall file petition to
grant leave to defend within 10 days from the date of receipt of
summon.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any petition to grant
leave to defend the suit. When the petitioner had taken specific stand
that he was served only summon without copy of the affidavit and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.384 of 2018
plaint documents, he shall file before the Court the address for service
and notice for them. Even assuming that the petitioner was not served
with copy of the affidavit and annexures to the plaint, he may raise the
said ground in the petition to grant leave of the court. Without doing
so, the petitioner filed the present petition to convert the case into
ordinary suit. Further, the petitioner failed to file any document to
show that summon was served along with the plaint only, not of the
documents.. Therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the petition
and decreed the suit. As such this Court finds no infirmity or
irregularity in the order passed by the court below.
4. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appeal as against the
judgment and decree passed in the above suit. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.
15.04.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.384 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
To
The XVII Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
CRP.NPD.No.384 of 2018
15.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
