M.K. Sharma, J. - (1.) The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 93,81,675.00 alongwith interest pendentelite and future. On 8.2.1996 the suit was registered. Summons and notices were ordered to be issued to the defendant by registered post as also through ordinary process. Subsequently, however, the plaintiff filed an interim application registered as I.A.No.1834/1996 for adding the registered office of the respondent at Kanpur. The aforesaid application filed by the plaintiff was allowed, in pursuance of which summons and notices were directed to be issued to the defendant at the said address also. On 12.4.1996 it was directed that the service report on the defendant be awaited and in the mean time fresh summons/notices were directed to be issued through ordinary process as also through registered post. In pursuance to the same the summons/notices were issued both by ordinary process as well as by registered A.D.Post. Subsequently, however, a dispute arose as to whether the summons and notices were duly served on the defendant or not. On 30.9.1996 this court held that there was no proper service on the defendant in respect of the suit and accordingly the plaintiff was directed to take fresh steps for service on the defendant. Subsequently, however, an application was filed by the petitioner which was registered as I.A. No.11206/1996 praying for review of the order dated 30.9.1996. The defendant who had in the meantime entered appearance opposed the said application and accordingly, the counsel appearing for the parties were heard.
(2.) By order 5.8.1997 this court held that the order passed on 30.9.1996 was required to be reviewed inasmuch as the defendant was duly served prior to 30.9.1996 in accordance with law. Accordingly order dated 30.9.1996 was reviewed and that part of the order was recalled. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Division Bench which was registered as F.A.O.(0S) 205/1997. On 12.1.1998 the Division Bench perused the Despatched Register and on perusal thereof by order of the same date held that in the proceedings under order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure service was deemed to have been effected on the defendant and accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed. The Division Bench desired that the application for condonation of delay filed by the defendant be considered on merits. In terms of the aforesaid order the application filed by the defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and registered as I.A.No. 11951/1996 was put up for consideration before me on which I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff as also the defendants.
(3.) I have perused the contents of the aforesaid application filed by the defendant praying for condonation of delay in entering appearance by the defendants. According to the provisions of Order XXXVII Civil Procedure Code the plaintiff in a suit filed by him under the provisions of Order XXXVII has got to serve on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto alongwith the summons issued in the statutory form as prescribed under Rule 2 thereof and upon such service the defendant may within 10 days thereof enter appearance either in person or by a pleader and in either case he is to file in court an address for service upon him. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 3 provides that all summons/notices and all judicial process required to be served on the defendant would be deemed to have been duly served on him if they are left at the address given by him for such service.;