JUDGMENT Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition tiled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 22/02/2011 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, by which order the application filed by the respondents for unconditional leave to defend under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of the Civil Procedure Code came to be allowed and resultantly unconditional leave to defend came to be granted to the respondents. 3. Without burdening this order with unnecessary details, the facts which are relevant can be stated thus The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff, who had filed the Summary Suit No. 15/2010 for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,35,450/ -, which was for the goods sold and supplied by the petitioner. The said summary suit was preceded by a notice dated 25/09/2009 being issued by the petitioner to the respondents inter alia calling upon the respondents to pay the said amount. The said notice was replied to by the respondents' Advocate Shri P. Damodar Reddy in which reply in the last paragraph the respondents' Advocate had accepted the liability of his client i.e. the respondents above named to the extent of Rs.6,70,140/- and had requested for return of the post dated cheque of Rs.7,07,880/- dated 16/08/2009 drawn on the Axis Bank, R.P. Road Branch, Secunderabad to the respondents. In view of the said reply of the respondents, the petitioner accepted the said offer, which the petitioner communicated to the respondents by his letter dated 12/11/2009. However, seeing that the respondents were not fulfilling the commitment made to the petitioner, as contained in their Advocate's reply, the petitioner was constrained to file the said summary suit. 4. In the said suit the respondents upon being served with the summons, filed an application for leave to defend. The application makes an interesting reading in the said application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of the Civil Procedure Code, it was the case of the respondents, as spelt out in Clause (ii) wherein a bald statement has been made that though the defendants have already paid most of the amount to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not produced the said record. It appears that the said application was not even signed by the defendants. It appears that the said application was not even signed by the defendants. The trial Court considered the said application and by the impugned order dated 22/02/2011 allowed the said application and resultantly granted unconditional leave to defend. 5. The gist of the reasoning of the trial Court was that since it was the case of the respondents that they had paid substantial amount, there was a dispute between the parties and hence unconditional leave ought to be granted. In so far as the filing of the application, which was admittedly not within the time prescribed, the trial Court observed that a liberal view ought to has taken in such matters. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In my view, the impugned order granting unconditional leave cannot be sustained in terms of Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of the Civil Procedure Code. It is well settled that Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code is a self contained code, in so far as the prosecution of the summary suits are concerned. In terms of Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of the Civil Procedure Code, a time limit is prescribed for seeking leave to defend or otherwise the applicant is obliged to file an application for condonation of delay citing the reasons for the delay. In the instant case none of the kind has been done though admittedly the application for leave to defend has been filed almost after 90 days of the summons being served upon the respondents. The said aspect of delay has been totally glossed over by the trial Court on the ground that in such matters a liberal view has to be taken. The reasoning of the trial Court cannot be sustained more so in view of the fact that the issue before the trial Court was grant of unconditional leave in the said summary suit. 7. In so far as the merits of the after are concerned, it is significant to note that in clause (ii) the respondents have merely made a bald assertion that the respondents have paid substantial amount without specifying what amounts paid and when the said amounts were paid and without this material in support thereof, etc., the trial Court blissfully accepted the said statement and arrived at a conclusion that since there is a dispute between the parties unconditional leave is merited. It is further pertinent to note that though the correspondence between the Advocates was on record wherein as indicated above, the Advocate of the respondents has accepted the liability of the respondents to the extent of Rs.6,70, 140/-. The trial Court has also glossed over the said material on record whilst considering the application for unconditional leave. The said order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the teeth of the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of the Civil Procedure Code. 8. In that view of the matter, the above writ petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 22/02/2011 is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute. The parties to bear their respective costs. Petition allowed.