Megha 65_wp_9841_2019_fc.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9841 OF 2019 Smt. Alkaben Jayantilal Sheth ...Petitioner V/s. Kuntal Pratik Shah ...Respondent ________________ Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh for the Petitioner . Ms. Swapnali B. Thombare i/b. M/s. Das Associates for the Respondent. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 4 MARCH 2026. P.C.: 1) Petitioner has challenged order dated 27 August 2018 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court allowing Chamber Summons No.519 of 2016 and condoning delay of 37 days in giving appearance by the Defendant in the summary suit. 2) I have heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Thombare, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. I have considered the submissions canvassed by them. I have also gone through the reasons recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned order. I have also perused the records of the case >led alongwith the Petition. Page No. 1 of 2 4 March 2026 2026:BHC-AS:11140 Megha 65_wp_9841_2019_fc.odt 3) Under Order XXXVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code), once summons is served on the Defendant in a summary suit, he needs to put appearance within a period of 10 days and >le address for service of notice on him. In the present case, there was delay of 37 days in >ling appearance by the Defendant after service of suit summons. Under sub-Rule (7) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII, the Trial Court is invested with power to excuse delay in applying for delay in entering the appearance by the Defendant. In the present case, the Trial Court has exercised power vested under sub-Rule (7) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code and has proceeded to condone delay of 37 days in >ling appearance by the Defendant. 4) Thus, the Trial Court has exercised discretion in condoning delay of 37 days in >ling appearance by the Defendant. The Defendant came out with a case that the summons was served on her daughter, who was minor and that summons was not brought to the notice of the Defendant. The Defendant also pleaded the justi>cation of her husband undergoing physiotherapy for Rt. Hemiplegia with behaviour cognitive issue. The Trial Court has proceeded to accept the justi>cation pleaded for condonation of delay of 37 days. In my view, exercise of discretion by the Trial Court is not so irrational that this Court must exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I am therefore, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. 5) Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 2 of 2 4 March 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 06/03/2026 20:48:06