Court Rules That Subsequent Settlement Efforts Cannot Dilute Statutory Consequences of Summons Service Under Order XXXVII, Rules 2 and 3 of CPC
In a significant judgment delivered on October 29, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Farjand Ali, quashed the trial court's order directing the issuance of fresh summons under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The ruling came in a writ petition filed by petitioner Kanhaiya Lal Menariya challenging the Additional District Judge's order dated September 27, 2022, in a summary suit for recovery of Rs. 11,00,080/- instituted against respondent Babu Lal Janva.
The petitioner had initially served summons on the respondent under Order XXXVII, Rules 2 and 3 of CPC. The respondent appeared and acknowledged the debt, entering into a compromise agreement facilitated by the District Legal Services Authority, agreeing to pay Rs. 1 lakh monthly installments. However, after making the first installment, the respondent defaulted on subsequent payments.
Despite the valid and duly served summons under Rule 3, the trial court ordered fresh summons to be issued following the failure of the settlement terms. The High Court found this approach untenable, emphasizing that the statutory consequences attached to the service of summons under Order XXXVII cannot be overridden or diluted by subsequent settlement efforts or compromise agreements.
Justice Ali underscored that the procedure under Order XXXVII is a special mechanism designed for expeditious adjudication of claims and that once summons have been served, the statutory timelines and consequences must be respected. The Court noted that the compromise agreement itself included a clause that in the event of default, the suit would proceed as it stood before the settlement. Thus, the respondent could not claim revival of procedural opportunities waived earlier simply because the settlement failed.
The Court held that the issuance of fresh summons without any enabling legal provision was contrary to the statutory scheme and would frustrate the summary nature of the suit. It further clarified that the trial court must proceed with the suit based on the summons already served and the fact that the respondent failed to apply for leave to defend within the prescribed period.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order of fresh summons. The trial court was directed to continue the suit in accordance with Order XXXVII CPC and pass appropriate orders without delay.
This judgment reaffirms the strict procedural framework of summary suits under Order XXXVII CPC and clarifies that amicable settlements or their failure do not negate or suspend statutory provisions concerning summons and leave to defend. It serves as a crucial precedent for courts and litigants to ensure that procedural mandates are not compromised by interim settlement attempts.
Bottom Line:
Summary suits under Order XXXVII CPC - Statutory consequences of service of summons cannot be diluted due to subsequent settlement efforts or compromise agreements. Fresh summons cannot be issued once summons under Order 37, Rule 3 CPC have already been duly served, unless supported by any enabling provision of law.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXVII, Rules 2 and 3
Kanhaiya Lal Menariya v. Babu Lal Janva, (Rajasthan)) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3017448
