JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---The defendants have taken out this Third Party Notice in the Summary Suit. The question is whether such third party procedure is available in a Summary Suit. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of (Parasmal Chordia v. Rajlakshmi Ammal another)1, A.I.R. 1970 Madras 47. The said suit, as can be seen from the facts, was a regular suit, though on a negotiable instrument. Therefore, that judgment is of no assistance in so far as the issue involved in the present case is concerned. 2. It is then contended that the defendants were permitted to issue third party notice by order of Single Judge of this Court. Mere fact that permission was granted to issue third party notice by itself cannot amount to holding that provisions of the third party notice are available in a summary suit. 3. Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code, provides a special procedure in so far as summary suits are concerned. Firstly, the suit is maintainable between plaintiff and defendant based on negotiable instrument, or where the plaintiff seeks to recover debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant with or without interest arising out of written agreement or contract or an enactment where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty. It is thus clear that the suit is maintainable only when the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is based on one of the predicates being satisfied which form part of Order 37, Rule 2. Thereafter, on summons being issued in terms of Order 37, Rule 2(2) of the C.P.C., the defendant cannot defend the suit unless he enters appearance and obtains leave of the Court to defend the suit. On failure to enter appearance and to obtain leave to defend, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. Rule 3 of Order 37 also provides that the plaintiff shall together with the writ of summons under Rule 2 serve on the defendants a copy of the plaint and defendant may at any time within 10 days of such service enter appearance. In other words, appearance is to be filed within 10 days or with the leave of the Court, if period is extended within such extended period. In other words, appearance is to be filed within 10 days or with the leave of the Court, if period is extended within such extended period. Under Rule 3(2) of Order 37 if defendant enters appearance plaintiff has to serve on all the defendants a Summons for judgment within not less than 10 clear days from the date of service, supported by an affidavit etc. under Order 37, Rule 3(3), defendant has to file affidavit in reply disclosing such facts which entitles him to have leave to defend. Under Order 37, Rule 3(4), the Court after hearing the parties will grant either conditional or unconditional leave. If leave is rejected, the Court can pass judgment in favour of the plaintiff. These are not steps contemplated in regular suits. Learned Counsel however, brings to my attention the provisions of Order 37, Rule 7 which reads as under: "Save as provided by this order in suits hereunder shall be by the same as the procedure on suits instituted the ordinary manner." In other words, what this Rule 7 provides is that after apart from the procedure under Order 37 what is save is the other procedure applicable in respect of regular suit will also be applicable. For example provisions of Order 9, Order 17 etc. will also be applicable so far as suit is concerned. 4. Third party Notice is distinct and different wherein the defendant without filing a suit is allowed to put his claim against another against whom he has a claim. Order 37 does not contemplate such procedure at least till the Summons for judgment is heard and decided. 5. As third party notice has been dismissed as not being maintainable defendants will be entitled to refund of Court fees as per Rules. Certified copy expedited.