JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. (Oral) - Steel Authority of India Limited a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,82,23,995/- with interest against M/s. Atma Tube Products Limited - a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, Harbhajan Singh and Depak Singh-defendants under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. In this case summons for service of the defendants should have been issued on form No. 4 on which service to the defendant is issued in a suit filed under Order 37 CPC. Form No. 4 is a proforma of summons in a summary suit given in Appendix B of the Code of Civil Procedure. Form No. 4 reads as follows :- To ___________ Whereas __ has instituted a suit under Order 37 of the Code Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for Rs. and interest, you are hereby summoned to cause an appearance to be entered for you, within ten days for the service hereof, in default whereof the plaintiff will be entitled, after the expiration of the said period of ten days, to obtain a decree for any sum and exceeding the sum of Rs. ____ and the sum of Rs. _______ for costs, together with such interest, if any, as the Court may order. If you cause an appearance to be entered for you, the plaintiff will thereafter service upon you a summons for judgment at the hearing of which you will be entitled to move the Court for leave to defend the suit. Leave to defend may be obtained if you satisfy the court by affidavit or otherwise that there is a defence to the suit on the merits or that it is reasonable that you should be allowed to defend. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this ___________ day of ___________ Judge 3. In this case service to the defendants was not effected on Form No. 4 prescribing summons in a summary suit. Instead service to them was issued on Form No. 1 laid down in Appendix-B which is a proforma for summons for disposal of suit (Order 5 Rules 1, 5) (title). In this case service to the defendants was not effected on Form No. 4 prescribing summons in a summary suit. Instead service to them was issued on Form No. 1 laid down in Appendix-B which is a proforma for summons for disposal of suit (Order 5 Rules 1, 5) (title). Process No. 1, summons for disposal of suit (Order 5, Rules 1, 5) read as follows :- To ___________ Whereas _____ has instituted a suit against you for _______ you are hereby summoned to appear in this Court in person or by a pleader duly instructed, and able to answer all material question relating to the suit, or who shall be accompanied by some persons able to answer all such questions, on the ____ day of ___ at Oclock in the noon ________ to answer the claim; and as the day fixed for your appearance is appointed for the final disposal of the suit, you must be prepared to produce on that day all the witnesses upon those evidence and all the documents upon which you intend to rely in support of your defence. Take notice that, in default of your appearance on the day before mentioned the suit will be heard and determined in your absence. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, This ___________ day of ___________ Judge" 4. After service of the defendants on summons issued on Form No. 1 ibid, defendants appeared before the Court pursuant to the publication in a newspaper. After their service, learned trial Court passed the order dated 16.4.1998 Annexure P-2 which read as follows : "Defendants No. 2 and 3 appeared through Sh. V.K. Narang, Advocate and filed Memo of appearance. Now for filing written statement to come up on 22.7.1998. Contempt be also segregated." 5. On 9.6.1998 plaintiff respondent filed an application under Order 37 Rule 3(1) CPC praying for direction to the defendants to file the addresses for service of notice for judgment on them. Defendants filed reply to the said application, in which it was mentioned inter alia that it was settled law that if the defendants are not served as per the provisions of Order 37 CPC, the suit is to be treated as an ordinary suit and more so when the order has already been passed for filing written statement. 6. Defendants filed reply to the said application, in which it was mentioned inter alia that it was settled law that if the defendants are not served as per the provisions of Order 37 CPC, the suit is to be treated as an ordinary suit and more so when the order has already been passed for filing written statement. 6. On 15.11.1999, learned trial Court passed the following order :- "xxx xxx xxx xxx Without commenting upon the merits of the case in order to comply with the provision of Order 37 Rule 3 CPC, the defendants are hereby directed to furnish their addresses for service of summons for judgment upon them." 7. It is this order, which is being impugned through this revision by the defendants. 8. I have heard Shri R.K. Chhibber, Senior Advocate for the petitioners defendants and Shri Rajive Bhalla, Advocate for the respondents-plaintiff. 9. Impugned order dated 15.11.1999 of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh cannot be sustained because if this suit was to be treated as one having been filed under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC, Court should have sent summons to the defendants on Form No. 4 (Appendix-B) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Issuing summons on Form No. 4 (Appendix-B) of the Code of Civil Procedure, is mandatory so far as suits filed under Order 37 CPC are concerned. On Form No. 1 summons are issued to the defendants in ordinary suits. 10. It was held in Vasudev Chanoy v. T. Jagan Mohan, 1982(1) The Andhra Pradesh Weekly Reporter 246 that the difference between the summons sent in Form No. 1 under Order 5 Rule 1 and the summons sent in Form No. 4 under Order 37 lies in the fact that while the summons sent under Order 5 merely summons the defendant to appear in Court in person or by pleader on a particular date and to take part in the trial, the summons sent in Form No. 4 under Order 37 specifically cautions the defendant that the right of the defendant to contest the suit would be forfeited to him unless he performs and fulfills certain conditions. It says that the plaintiff would be entitled to obtain a decree without any trial in a summary procedure unless the defendant enters his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons and also obtain leave of the Court to defend the suit by showing sufficient cause. In other words, in a summary procedure the right of the defendant to contest the suit is conditional and not absolute as in ordinary run of suits. 11. In this case the trial Court committed an error by sending the wrong summons in Form No. 1 to the defendants instead of Form No. 4. Following the wrong proceedings by the trial Court cannot deprive the defendants to contest the suit. 12. In the result, this revision succeeds and is accordingly allowed and the learned trial Court is directed to treat this suit as an ordinary suit. Other defendants shall have full right to defend it. This suit was instituted in 1996. So far, there has been no progress in the suit. Learned trial Court is directed to decide this suit as expeditiously as possible in any event, within one year of the receipt of copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 1.2.2001. Copy of the order be given dasti. Revision allowed.