Bijayesh Mukherji, J. - (1.) The interlocutory order I render now governs three suits under Order 37 of the Procedure Code. One is suit No. 1694 of 1964 by Srimati Sona Devi Pugalia residing at 146 Mahatma Gandhi Road. And it is for recovery of Rs. 7,369.82 paise inclusive of interest, on the foot of a hundi dated September. 23, 1963. Another is suit No. 1697 of 1964 by Hanuman Das Meheswari also residing at 146 Mahatma Gandhi Road. And it is for recovery of Rs. 12,161. 25 paise, inclusive of interest, on the foot of a hundi dated August 26, 1963. Still another is suit No. 1698 of 1964 by Pugalia and Company (Puralia in cause title of the plaint appears to be a typing error) 146 Mahatma Gandhi Road again. And it is for recovery of Rs. 9,517.50 paise. inclusive of interest, on the foot of a hundi dated August 26, 1963, too. The defendants in each of the three suits are a firm under the name and style of Calcutta Iron Steel and Non-ferrous Metal Works carrying on business at 22 Canning Street and its proprietor, Subodh. Gopal Bose of 5/2 Rammoy Road.
(2.) These three suits, in each of which the writ of summons is said to have been served on October, 13 1964, appear in my list for ex parte hearing, no leave having been obtained, within ten days from the aforesaid date of service, by the defendants to appear and defend them. The defendants at this stage pray for leave so to appear and defend, They allege that no writ or summons was served on them ever and that much later they came to know of the suits which their solicitor had seen for the first time on February 10, 1965, appearing in my Warning List of undefended suits. The defendants' petitions to that end are dated February 16, 1965. They took out Master's summons which was duly served in each suit on February 17 following. Their petitions apart, I have had before me the plaintiffs' affidavits affirmed on March 1, 1965, and the defendants' affidavits-in-reply affirmed on March 9 following.
(3.) Just as Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the defendants, addresses me a little in support of the leave prayed for, Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, raises a preliminary point. The point is that far more than ten days having passed from October 13, 1964--the date of service of summons in each suit--the defendants have no locus standi to move the Court for leave to appear or to defend the suits. Mr. Sinha therefore asks me not even to hear this matter which, he submits, is barred at the threshold.;