JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court had dismissed the petitioner's application u/O. 37 Rule 3(5), (7) CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and application u/O. 37 Rule 3 CPC. 3. The fact, in the background of which the revision arises are, that the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a summary suit against three defendants, including the petitioner, pleading them as partners of M/s. Manbhadra Textile Mills Balotra. In this suit, the summons for appearance were served, and in response thereto. the petitioner entered appearance in time, and gave his address for his service of notice on him, as required by Or. 37 Rule 3(1). It appears that thereafter the summons for judgment were sent to him, which were received by his brother, fugal Kishore, but despite that service, no application for leave to defend was filed, and the suit had been decreed-against the petitioner. 4. Thereupon, the petitioner filed applications as above submitting that the summons were never sent to him at the address given by him, when he entered appearance, it was also contended that the suit is barred by time, it has been filed by an unauthorised person, the document on the basis of which, the suit filed are inadmissible in evidence, in these circumstances, if the leave to defend is not granted to the petitioner, he would suffer grave injustice. It was also contended that the summons were sent at Pachpadra, instead of being sent to Ahmedabad, and were got served at Pachpadra on the petitioner's brother, who lives separately for quite some time, and is not having good relations. It was also alleged, that it was on 20.10.1996 when the petitioner came to Balotra from Ahmedabad, that it was learnt that the case was fixed on 31.10.1996, and immediately the applications for leave to defend, and for condonation of delay etc. have been filed.It appears from the impugned order that by this very order, the learned trial Court ha3 granted leave to defend to the defendant No. 3 unconditionally, comprehending the circumstances, that the defendant No. 3 is guarantor, which guarantee was never renewed, and the suit might be barred by time. have been filed.It appears from the impugned order that by this very order, the learned trial Court ha3 granted leave to defend to the defendant No. 3 unconditionally, comprehending the circumstances, that the defendant No. 3 is guarantor, which guarantee was never renewed, and the suit might be barred by time. However, so far the petitioner is concerned, despite finding in para about the petitioner having given the address of Naroda, Ahmedabad, and also despite finding that summons were not sent at Naroda, Ahmedabad, learned trial Court proceeded to consider, that since Pachpadra was a permanent address, while Ahmedabad was a temporary address, which cannot be treated to be the address, and since the summons at Pachpadra has been accepted by the petitioner's brother, the petitioner's applications have been dismissed. 5. A look at the provisions of Or. 37 Rule 3(1) shows that according to that provision, the defendant, at any time within ten days of the service of summons u/R. 2, is to enter appearance, either in person, or by pleader, and in either case, he is to file an address for service of notices on him. Then according to sub-rule (2), unless otherwise ordered all summons, notices and other judicial process required to be sent on the defendant, shall be deemed to be served upon him, if they are left at the 'address given by him for such service'. 6. A combined reading of these two provisions leaves no manner of doubt, that for a proper service of summons for judgment, the summon has to be sent only at the address given by the defendant while entering appearance, as "addressed for service of notice on him". Simply because the plaintiff feels that the defendant at any other address of that he may get the notices served on the defendant at any other address, in my view would not be sufficient, at least for the purpose of disentitling the defendant from applying for leave to defend, or even for refusing the request for condoning the delay, in case, on that account, he could not apply for leave to defend so within the time prescribed by Or. 37, Rule 3 sub-rule (5). 7. 37, Rule 3 sub-rule (5). 7. Since in the present case, admittedly, the notices have not been sent at the address given by The defendant as 'addresses for service of notice on him', and since the defendant had moved the applications immediately on 1 coming to know of the facts, the delay was required to be condoned. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order, so far as it is against the defendant No.1, petitioner, is set-aside, the delay in filing the application for leave to defend is condoned, and the leave trial Court is directed to, decide, the petitioner's application for leave to defend, on its own merits, in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 8.12.2003. *******