JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-defendant has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 3.8.2013 (Annexure-9) passed by the learned Additional District judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 83/2008-Om Prakash v. Prithvi Raj , whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner- defendant under Order 37, Rule 3 (5) of C.P.C. seeking to leave to defend alongwith the written statement and has also rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and refused to grant the leave to defend to the petitioner. 2. Mr. Nitin Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant vehemently submitted that since it was not mandatory to file the registered address of the defendant Order 37, Rule 3 (5) of C.P.C. within the stipulated time frame of ten days; and thereafter since the judgment summons were not served upon the petitioner-defendant, such defence could not be filed earlier. He further argued that the learned trial Court was not justified in refusing to leave the defend the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed that the leave to defend deserves to be granted, subject to payment of reasonable cost to the plaintiff, as may be imposed by the Court. 3. On the other hand, Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff urged that the defendant not only dragged the trial for four years by filing a frivolous application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. and such an application came to be rejected by the learned trial Court after four years in the year 2012 and thereafter also the leave to defend was sought on frivolous and vexatious kind of defence; and therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in refusing to grant the leave to defend to the petitioner and same does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the scheme of order 37 summary trials is very clear and to provide and quick remedy for the money recovery suits, this provision has been enacted within the stipulated time frame given therein. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the scheme of order 37 summary trials is very clear and to provide and quick remedy for the money recovery suits, this provision has been enacted within the stipulated time frame given therein. The conduct of the trial in the present case dragged for long period of four years, mainly for the reason of the defendant filing an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. merely because he had also filed an F.I.R. under Section 420 I.P.C. against the plaintiff-respondent, which ultimately, came to be rejected, as also a negative final report was filed in favour of plaintiff-respondent by the concerned investigating Officer. It shows that the defendant-petitioner has only tried to delay the trial under order 37 C.P.C. defeating the very purpose of summary quick trial. 5. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was justified in refusing the leave to defend. However, still in the interest of justice and lest the suit is decreed, without defence against the defendant-petitioner, it is considered appropriate that subject to payment of reasonable cost and imposing of conditions, the leave to defend can still be granted by this Court with a request to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial in consonance with the letter and spirit of order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and setting aside the impugned order dated 3.8.2012, the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant may be taken on record subject to the following two condition viz. (i) the defendant- petitioner shall pay the cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff-respondent within a period of fifteen days from today; and (ii) the petitioner-defendant shall deposit ⅓rd of the suit amount i.e. Rs. 1,31,280/- along-with interest i.e. Rs. 45,000/-, within a period of one month from today with the learned trial Court. In case, he fails to comply with these conditions, the writ petition shall be treated as dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned trial Court below forthwith.Petition Allowed. *******