( 1 ) THIS C. R. P. is filed against the order, dated 26. 12. 2003, in I. A. No. 689 of 2003, in O. S. No. 375 of 2003, on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. The defendant in the suit is the petitioner and the sole plaintiff is the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed, in the suit. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed O. S. No. 375 of 2002, against the defendant, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 76,926/-, in. the trial court, by invoking the procedure under Order 37 Rule 4 C. P. C. An ex parte decree was passed on 15. 11. 2002. The defendant filed i. A. No. 689 of 2003, under Rule 4 of Order 37 CPC, with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree, and sought permission to contest the suit, by filing the written statement. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. Through its order, dated 26. 1. 2. 2003, the trial court dismissed the application. ( 3 ) SRI M. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the defendant, submits that the summons in the suit were served upon the defendant on 7. 10. 2002, and that appearance was entered on 23. 10. 2002. He contends that notwithstanding this development, the plaintiff filed a memo on 1. 11. 2002 into the trial court, staling that the defendant did not file any Vakalath and based on the same, the trial court passed an ex parte decree on 15. 11. 2002. He contends that once the defendant entered appearance by the time the trial court took up the matter, it was under obligation to examine whether the plaintiff has followed the procedure, such as, delivery of summons for judgment, etc. He contends that once such material lapses were pointed out by filing the present I. A. , the trial court ought to have set aside the ex parte. decree, and permitted the defendant to contest the matter, on merits. ( 4 ) SRI T. Raghuram, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the defendant was under obligation to enter appearance within 10 days, from the date of receipt of the summons and having failed to do so, he cannot raise objection for passing of an ex parte decree. decree, and permitted the defendant to contest the matter, on merits. ( 4 ) SRI T. Raghuram, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the defendant was under obligation to enter appearance within 10 days, from the date of receipt of the summons and having failed to do so, he cannot raise objection for passing of an ex parte decree. Learned counsel submits that the very object of prescribing the summary procedure, under Order37 c. P. C. , is to ensure that claims of certain categories are resolved, as early as possible. He submits that no exception can be taken to the order under revision. ( 5 ) ORDER 37 CPC prescribes the summary procedure, which can be invoked in suits filed for recovery of amounts or debts, based upon bills of exchange, written contracts, enactments, guarantees, etc. Several judgments rendered, by the supreme Court and the High Courts have dealt with the various facets of Order 37 C. P. C. Therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the same, in detail. Broadly stated, the procedure is that, in such a suit, the defendant shall not be entitled to defend the suit, unless he enters appearance as provided for, under Rule 2 (3) of Order 37. Rule 3 (1) of Order 37, obligates the plaintiff to serve on the defendant, the copy of the plaint and enclosures. It proceeds to add that the defendant may, at any time, within ten days of such service, enter appearance, and leave address for service of notices on him. A further obligation is cast upon the defendant, to serve notice on the plaintiff about the appearance, on the same day on which he was entered into the Court. ( 6 ) SUB-RULE (4) of Rule 3 of Order 37 C. P. C. , cases an obligation on the plaintiff, to serve summons for judgment, on the defendant, returnable in a particular time. It is apt to extract the same:"3 (4 ). ( 6 ) SUB-RULE (4) of Rule 3 of Order 37 C. P. C. , cases an obligation on the plaintiff, to serve summons for judgment, on the defendant, returnable in a particular time. It is apt to extract the same:"3 (4 ). If the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff shall thereafter serve on the defendant: a summons for judgment in Form No. 4a in Appendix B or such other form as may be prescribed from time to time returnable not less than ten clays from the date of service supported by an affidavit verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed and stating that in his belief there is no defence to the suit. "the obligation on the part of the defendant to disclose the facts, cither through an affidavit, or otherwise, seeking a leave to defend the suit, is dependant upon the service of summons of judgment, on him. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order 37 C. P. C, which deals with these aspects of the matter, reads as under:"3 (5 ). The defendant may, at any time within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, by affidavit or otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may be appear to the court or judge to be just;"an ex parte decree can be passed in a suit of this category, only when the defendant fails to enter appearance. Once appearance is entered, a decree can be passed, only after crossing the stage of service of summons for judgment ( 7 ) IN the instant case, it is not in dispute that the. summons were served upon the defendant on 7. 10. 2002. Under rule 3 (1) of Order. 37 C. P. C. , the defendant was under obligation to enter appearance, 011 or before 17. 10. 2002. However, six days (hereafter, he entered appearance on 23. 10. 2002. The trial court would have been justified, had it passed an ex parie decree, before 23,10. 2002. Once, the defendant entered appearance on 23. 10. 37 C. P. C. , the defendant was under obligation to enter appearance, 011 or before 17. 10. 2002. However, six days (hereafter, he entered appearance on 23. 10. 2002. The trial court would have been justified, had it passed an ex parie decree, before 23,10. 2002. Once, the defendant entered appearance on 23. 10. 2002, it was impermissible for the trial court, to ignore the same and proceed to pass an ex parte decree, without ensuring compliance with other steps under Rule 3 of Order 37 C. P. C. Though sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 gives an indication that entering appearance by a defendant, within ten days from the date of service of summons, is mandatory, the same rigor does not appear in the context of service of summons for judgment. The obligation on the part of the plaintiff, in such a suit, to serve the summons for judgment on a defendant arises, once the latter enters appearance. The provision does not insist that the appearance must be within ten days, or that it. must be followed intimation to the defendant. The Parliament indicated specific time in Rule 2 for the purpose of entering appearance, but did not do so in Rule 3. The omission has its own significance. Mere entering of appearance by a defendant even after 10 days, from the date of receipt of summons, is sufficient to attract the obligation, on the part of a plaintiff, to serve summons for judgment in Form No. 4a of appendix-B, provided, an ex parte decree was not passed, by the date of such appearance. ( 8 ) IT is possible to contend, and in fact was argued that the various steps contemplated under sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 3 of Order 37 C. P. C. , must be read into sub-rule (4 ). However, being a provision, which enables the plaintiff to obtain a decree, without contest from a defendant, and conversely the one, which exposes a defendant for the obligation under decree without being heard, the provision must receive strict construction. However, being a provision, which enables the plaintiff to obtain a decree, without contest from a defendant, and conversely the one, which exposes a defendant for the obligation under decree without being heard, the provision must receive strict construction. If the legislature thought it fit that entering appearance by a defendant was sufficient to attract the obligation, on the part of the plaintiff to serve the summons for judgment, the scope of the provision cannot be narrowed clown, by restricting it to the cases, where entering appearance by the defendant was within a time, specified for a different purpose. The fact that, sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 empowers the court to excuse the delay, in entering appearance, or applying for leave to defendant would add strength to such an approach. Therefore, there exists a clear irregularity in the ex parte decree, dated 15. 11. 2002, which came to be passed, after the defendant entered appearance on 23. 10. 2002. ( 9 ) SETTING aside a decree passed in a suit filed under order 07 CPC, is not a matter of course. Rule 4 thereof mandates that it is only when special circumstances are established that a decree passed in such suits can be set aside. The fact that the decree in question was passed, in contravention, of mandatory provisions of CPC, can certainly be treated as a special circumstance. Further, it is not as if the plaintiff would be exposed to undue hardship. He has not taken out any summons for judgment, in Form No. 4a, to the defendant. Consequent 011 the setting aside the ex parte decree, he shall have to undertake that exercise. As and when the summons under Form No. 4a me served on the defendant, he shall be entitled to seek leave to defend the suit. The trial court shall have to consider the same on its own merits, in accordance with the sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 3 of order 37 C. P. C. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the C. R. P. and I. A. No. 689 of 2003 are allowed. Consequently, the ex parte decree dated 15. 11. 2002 in O. S. No. 375 of 2002 is set aside. Consequently, the ex parte decree dated 15. 11. 2002 in O. S. No. 375 of 2002 is set aside. The suit is relegated to the stage, where the plaintiff has to take out summons for judgment, in Form No. 4a of Appendix-B, to the defendant there shall be no order as to costs.