Short Note : Non-applicant-plaintiff filed a suit based on a promissory note for recovery of Rs. 9,000/- as principal amount, and Rs. 4,360/- as interest. He claimed interest for further period also. On 29-6-1977 the District Judge passed an order for issuing summons to the defendant. He fixed 2-9-1977 as the next date. The applicant-defendant, as admitted by him, was served with the summons of the suit on 10-7-1977. The defendant entered appearance on 14-7-1977 and also filed in Court his address for serving notices on him, as required by Order 37, rule 3(1). The defendant on 14-7-1977 had in writing filed an application in the Court mentioning inter alia the fact that written notice of appearance of the defendant has been given to the plaintiff's counsel. This notice was given on 14-7-1977 by serving a copy of this application, dated 14-7-1977 on the counsel for the plaintiff. On that day i.e. 14-7-1977 the District Judge recorded the appearance of defendant's counsel, his having filed the registered address as also the fact that notice of appearance has been given to the plaintiff's counsel. It appears that neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared on that day. The District Judge directed the case to be put up on 2-9-1977 for further proceedings. 2. On 2-9-1977, an application was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff for an order to issue summons in Form 4-A in Appendix B for service on the defendant. An affidavit of the plaintiff as required by Order 37, rule 3(4) of the Code, was also filed. It was this aforesaid application which was opposed by the counsel for the defendant. The objection was that the aforesaid steps should have been taken by the plaintiff within ten days from the date of appearance of the defendant of which the plaintiff had notice. The District Judge overruled this objection. According to him, the supply of the copy of the application, dated 14-7-1977 as also its contents on the basis of which it was contended that the plaintiff had been noticed, could not be taken to mean that the defendant was to put in his appearance on 14-7-1977 and time can not run from that day. According to him, the supply of the copy of the application, dated 14-7-1977 as also its contents on the basis of which it was contended that the plaintiff had been noticed, could not be taken to mean that the defendant was to put in his appearance on 14-7-1977 and time can not run from that day. The other reasoning as given by him was that the words "Returnable not less than ten days from the date of service supported by an affidavit........" in Order 37, rule 3(4) of the Code do not mean that the plaintiff should get the summons in Form 4-A, Schedule B issued within ten days of the date when the defendant puts in his appearance. Held : Counsel for the petitioner excepting for relying on the language of Order 37, rule 3(4) of the Code could not point out any provision in support of his contention that the plaintiff has to take the steps for getting a summons for judgment in Form No. 4-A in Appendix B served on the defendant within 10 days from the date of appearance of the defendant. 3. The language of Order 37, rule 3(4) is crystal clear. The period of not less than 10 days, as has been provided in the aforesaid Sub-rule is not meant for the plaintiff to take the steps after when the defendant puts in appearance. The language of this Sub-rule clearly goes to show that the words "returnable not less than ten days from the date of service" govern the summons to be served on the defendant. This construction is further supported by the language of sub-rule (5) of rule 3 of Order 37 of the Code wherein the words used are "The defendant may, at any time within ten days from the service of such summons..". The words "such summons" as used in sub-rule 5 refers to the summons for judgment as provided in sub-rule 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner has therefore no merit. Revision dismissed.