An Order XXXVII Rule 4 application filed within three years requires no delay-condonation application.

The petitioners challenged the Trial Court’s order rejecting their application to condone delay in filing an application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The underlying summary suit had resulted in an ex parte decree on 23 March 2017. The petitioners filed their Order XXXVII Rule 4 application on 26 August 2019—within three years of the decree—but also filed an application for condonation of delay, which the Trial Court rejected.

The petitioners contended that no condonation application was necessary; the respondent argued that the petitioners had delayed and had chosen not to contest the suit despite service.

Whether an application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC, filed within three years of the ex parte decree, required a separate application for condonation of delay.

Whether the Trial Court’s order rejecting the condonation application should be set aside, while leaving the merits of the Order XXXVII Rule 4 application to the Trial Court.

Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a three-year limitation period for an application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC, as applied by the Court in reliance on Amar Offset Private Limited & Anr. v. Niketan Paper Board Private Limited & Anr., 2012 SCC OnLine Guj 4195.

Accordingly, where such an application is filed within that period, a separate application to condone delay is not required.

The decree was passed on 23 March 2017 and the petitioners filed their Order XXXVII Rule 4 application on 26 August 2019, within the three-year period identified under Article 137.

Applying Amar Offset, the Court concluded that the application was within time and that the separate condonation application had been filed unnecessarily. The Trial Court had therefore erred in deciding and rejecting that unnecessary application.

The High Court did not determine whether the petitioners were entitled to relief under Order XXXVII Rule 4; it left that question, and all parties’ contentions, open for the Trial Court.

The High Court quashed the Trial Court’s order solely because the condonation application was unnecessary, and directed the Trial Court to consider the petitioners’ Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC application on its merits after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The High Court expressed no view on the merits, and made no order as to costs.