High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 07 DEL CK 1813

Vijay Kumar vs Mahinder Singh

Delhi High Court · Decided on 25 July 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Jain, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CM(M) 1357/2025 & CM APPL. 44601/2025 & CM APPL. 44602/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 282 words
1.

The petitioner herein is aggrieved by dismissal of his application moved under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC.

2.

It is intriguing as to how the petitioner is entitled to take any shelter behind Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC.

3.

Admittedly, in the suit in question, which was summary in nature, the petitioner had not only put in appearance but had also filed an application seeking leave to defend.

4.

His only grievance is that after filing his such application seeking leave to defend, his counsel did not appear and he also could not file any written synopsis and in his absence, a judgment has been passed whereby leave to defend was refused.

5.

The objective behind incorporating Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC is not far to seek. It kicks in only when there is a default decree or ex-parte decree, as it is generally called.

6.

The learned Trial Court could have granted some indulgence if, on the basis of special reasons assigned, the learned Trial Court was convinced that either the defendant could not enter his appearance or, for that matter, could not file application seeking leave to defend.

7.

Here, both the conditions are met as appearance was put in and leave to defend was filed which was, eventually, considered by the learned Trial Court. In such a peculiar situation, the only recourse available to the petitioner, if advised, would be to challenge the decree on merits, instead of seeking to set aside the same under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC.

8.

Viewed thus, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and same is, hereby, dismissed in limine.

9.

Pending applications also stand disposed of.