Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), introduces a summary procedure aimed at expediting the adjudication of specific categories of civil suits. This mechanism is designed to prevent defendants from employing frivolous or vexatious defenses that could unduly delay justice. By limiting the scope of permissible defenses, Order XXXVII ensures a swift resolution in cases where the plaintiff’s claim is ostensibly straightforward and undisputed.

SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY

Order XXXVII applies to the following courts:

• High Courts, City Civil Courts, and Courts of Small Causes.
• Other courts as notified by the High Court, which may restrict or expand the categories of suits under this order.

The types of suits that can be instituted under Order XXXVII include:

1. Suits based on bills of exchange, hundies, and promissory notes.
2. Suits seeking recovery of a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest, arising from:
   • A written contract.
   • An enactment where the sum sought is a fixed amount or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty.
   • A guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only.

PROCEDURE FOR INSTITUTING A SUMMARY SUIT

To initiate a suit under Order XXXVII, the plaintiff must adhere to the following procedural requirements:

1. Presentation of Plaint:
   The plaint should explicitly state that the suit is filed under Order XXXVII and must not include any relief that falls outside the purview of this order.

2. Issuance of Summons:
   Upon filing the plaint, the court issues a summons in the prescribed form, directing the defendant to appear within ten days from the date of service.

3. Defendant’s Appearance:
   The defendant must enter an appearance within the stipulated period by filing an address for service of notices. Failure to do so entitles the plaintiff to seek a decree.

4. Summons for Judgment:
   If the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff serves a summons for judgment, supported by an affidavit verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed.

5. Leave to Defend:
   The defendant may, within ten days of service of the summons for judgment, apply for leave to defend the suit by disclosing facts that constitute a substantial defense. The court may grant leave unconditionally or impose conditions, including requiring security.

KEY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

The judiciary has elucidated various aspects of Order XXXVII through landmark judgments:

• Rajni Kumar v. Suresh Kumar Malhotra, 2003 (3) SCALE 434:
  The Supreme Court emphasized that under Order 37 Rule 4, the court must assess whether the circumstances are extraordinary or unusual to justify setting aside a decree and granting the defendant leave to appear and defend the suit.

• Neebha Kapoor v. Jayantilal Khandwala, (2008) 3 SCC 770:
  The Court held that the object of Order XXXVII is to ensure a quick disposal of suits to prevent unreasonable obstruction by a defendant who has no defense.

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING LEAVE TO DEFEND

The court’s discretion in granting leave to defend is guided by the following principles:

1. Substantial Defense:
   If the defendant discloses facts that prima facie constitute a substantial defense, leave to defend should be granted unconditionally.

2. Frivolous or Vexatious Defense:
   If the defense appears frivolous or vexatious, the court may refuse leave to defend.

3. Conditional Leave:
   In cases where the defense is plausible but requires further scrutiny, the court may grant leave to defend on conditions, such as depositing a part of the claim amount in court.

ADVANTAGES OF SUMMARY PROCEDURE

• Expeditious Disposal:
  Facilitates swift adjudication of cases, reducing the backlog of civil suits.

• Deterrence of Frivolous Defenses:
  Discourages defendants from raising untenable defenses merely to delay proceedings.

• Cost Efficiency:
  Reduces litigation costs for plaintiffs by shortening the duration of the suit.

LIMITATIONS AND CRITICISMS

• Limited Scope:
  Applicable only to specific categories of suits, thereby excluding a vast array of civil disputes.

• Potential for Injustice:
  The stringent timelines and limited defenses may, in certain cases, prejudice defendants who have a legitimate defense but are unable to present it within the prescribed period.

CONCLUSION

Order XXXVII of the CPC serves as a potent tool for the expeditious resolution of particular civil suits. By curtailing dilatory tactics and focusing on clear-cut cases, it upholds the principles of justice and efficiency. However, the courts must exercise caution to ensure that the summary nature of the procedure does not override the fundamental right to a fair hearing, thereby maintaining a balance between swift justice and equitable adjudication.

REFERENCES

• Rajni Kumar v. Suresh Kumar Malhotra, 2003 (3) SCALE 434.
• Neebha Kapoor v. Jayantilal Khandwala, (2008) 3 SCC 770.
• Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.