JUDGMENT
R.S. Madan, J.
1. In (his Civil Revision No. 2222 of 1987 the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.5.1987, whereby in a suit for recovery filed by the Bank the petitioner was not allowed leave to defend the suit being time-barred.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff Punjab and Sind Bank had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,908/-under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure alongwith interest at the rate of 17.5% from 11.12.1986 till realisation against the petitioner/defendant Harpreet Singh, before the Civil Court at Chandigarh. On receipt of the notice of summons, the petitioner was to appear before the court within 10 days from the date of service and thereafter, he was to be served with the summons of the judgments and it was only thereafter that he was entitled to seek the leave of the court to defend the case. However, the petitioner in the instant case did not appear before the Court within a stipulated period. Ha moved an application for condonation of delay to grant him the leave of the court and sought the decision of the case on merits. The aforesaid petition was resisted by the plaintiff bank who took up the plea that the defendant has not followed the procedure as laid down under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. After going through the various submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties the learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Chandigarh dismissed the application for condonation of delay for leave to defend the suit as having been not maintainable at the stage because the summons of the judgments were never served upon the defendant and thereafter decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that by not following the procedure as laid down under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner who cannot be denied his right of leave of defend the case on merits. The procedure laid down under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a hand-made procedure which is not to stand in the way of denying the substantial justice to the parties. He thus prayed that impugned order of the Trial Court be set aside and the petitioner be granted leave to defend the suit on merits.
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as going through the Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure, I do not subscribe to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Provisions of Order 37 are a mere formality. It is a procedure which has been specifically mentioned under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure which needs to be followed for the purpose of decision of the case in a suit for recovery and any deviation from the procedure would prejudice the case of the respondent-bank further when a valuable right has been accrued to it. The stand taken by the petitioner that he could not appear in the Court within a stipulated period because no name of the court has been mentioned in the summons is also not tenable because the summons have been duly signed by the Sub-Judge, First Class, Chandigarh and issued under her signatures. Therefore, it was not difficult for the petitioner to have come to know the name of the court in which he was under an obligation to appear.
6. Another notable feature of Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure is that as soon as the petitioner would have made appearance before the court he should have been served with the summons of the judgments and it was only thereafter that he was entitled to seek the leave of the Court to defend the case on merits. Without going through the required procedure, the petitioner directly sought leave of the Court by moving an application for condonation of delay which was not accepted by the Court because of the non-following of the procedure laid down under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code
7. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision and the same is hereby dismissed.