Failure to Enter Appearance Under Order XXXVII Barred Setting Aside Decree Absent Procedural Fraud or Substantial Defence

The Plaintiff (Respondent) filed a recovery suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC for ₹21,50,000, alleging he advanced friendly loans to the Defendant (Appellant) for government contracts and medical emergencies.

A post-dated cheque issued by the Appellant was dishonored with the remarks "PPS NOT CONFIRMED".

The Trial Court issued summons for appearance; however, the Appellant failed to enter an appearance within the statutory 10-day period.

Consequently, the Trial Court passed an ex-parte decree on 29.08.2024.

The Appellant subsequently filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC to set aside the decree, claiming he was never served and that his signatures on the service reports were forged, supported by a private handwriting expert's report.

The Trial Court dismissed this application on 17.10.2025, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether the Appellant disclosed "special circumstances" under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree, specifically regarding the validity of service of summons.

2. Whether the Appellant raised a substantial defense or a genuine triable issue that would entitle him to leave to defend.

3. Whether the report of a handwriting expert based on certified copies rather than original documents carries evidentiary value.

The Court applied Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) of the CPC, which mandates that the defendant must enter an appearance within ten days of service, failing which the allegations in the plaint are deemed admitted.

Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC, which requires "special circumstances" to set aside a decree.

The Court followed the principles in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. vs. Hubtown Ltd. (2017), establishing that leave to defend must be refused if no substantial defense is disclosed.

The Court further cited B. L. Gupta vs. Sunita Khanna and Prabhat vs. Dharmapal regarding the requirements for setting aside summary decrees.

The High Court observed that the Trial Court record showed the Appellant was served on two separate occasions (24.04.2024 and 01.07.2024), making the plea of non-service untenable.

The Court dismissed the handwriting expert's opinion because the expert compared signatures using certified copies instead of the original court record, rendering the findings unreliable.

Regarding the merits, the Court found the Appellant's defense—that a blank cheque was misused by a third party named "Supreet"—to be a "sham" because the Appellant failed to identify Supreet’s relationship to the parties or explain why no police complaint was lodged regarding the alleged misuse.

The Court concluded that since the Appellant admitted his signatures on the cheque and failed to show any fraud or "special circumstances," there were no grounds to interfere with the Trial Court’s decision.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 29.08.2024 as well as the order dated 17.10.2025.