- (1.) Legislature intended that summary suits should be disposed of expeditiously. Clause 87, (sub-clause (1) of S.O.R. (Gaz. of India 8-4-74, Part II, S. 2, Ext. p. 334) reads as under : "Clause 87 - Sub-Clause (i) :-- Order 37 provides for a summary procedure in respect of certain suits. The essence of the summary suit is that the defendant is not, as in an ordinary suit, entitled as of right to defend the suit, he must apply for leave to defend within ten days from the date of the service of the summons upon him and such leave will be granted only if the affidavit filed by the defendant discloses such facts as will make it incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove consideration or such other facts as the Court may deem sufficient for granting leave to the defendant to appear and defend the suit. If no leave to defend is granted, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. The object underlying the summary procedure is to prevent unreasonable obstruction by a defendant who has no defence. The order, however, confined to suits of negotiable instruments and is confined to superior Courts. Rule 1 is being substituted to provide for extending the summary procedure to the trial of specified classes of suits by all Courts."
(2.) This Court (Hon'ble D. L. Mehta as he then was) had occasion to consider the object of Order 37, CPC in M/s. Aradhana Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Vishnu Textile Traders, AIR 1990 Rajasthan 98. In paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment, this Court indicated thus : " 12. Order 37 has been inserted in its present form vide Amending Act of 1976. The object of the law and particularly O. 37 is that the cases should be decided summarily as far as practicable and, at the same time, the Court should be vigilant to see that justice is done. Rule 1 of Order 37 provides that the operation of the summary procedure may be restricted by the High Court only to such categories of suits as it deems proper and may further restrict, enlarge or vary the categories of the suits to be brought under the operation of the order. 13. I do not know whether the proviso has been discussed by the High Court in its meeting any time. I think that this matter has not been discussed by the Rajasthan High Court. Suits of higher valuation like the present suit may require a detailed determination. Sometimes, even a suit for petty nature needs judicial scrutiny in a cautious way particularly when the cases are against the persons of caste and tribes of the weaker sections of the Society. The object of this order is the summary trial for the early disposal, but, at the same time, to see that the justice is done and it should appear that the justice is done keeping this in mind number of factors including the nature of the suit. Broad generalisation of the law may lead to injustice if not applied looking to the specificities of a particular nature of the suit or the parties. For this reason, I am of the view that the condonation of delay should be considered looking to the specificities of the suit and not only the basis of the broad principles laid down which may in some cases, go against the equity and justice."
(3.) In view of the above observations, I proceed to decide the instant revision which impugns the order dated Feb. 5, 1997 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), East Ajmer dismissing the application of the defendant-petitioner (for short the defendant) filed under Order 37, Rule 3 (7) of the CPC.;