(BY SHRI SUMIT SAMVATSAR, ADVOCATE) v. Heard on the question of admission. ORDER

(BY SHRI TEJAS PARASHAR, ADVOCATE) AND MAHENDRA JAIN PROPRITOR M/S M.K. ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICAL 69, TUKOGANJ ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SUMIT SAMVATSAR, ADVOCATE) This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the .....RESPONDENT following: Heard on the question of admission. ORDER 2] This review petition has been filed under Order 47 read with Sections 114 and 151 of CPC for review of the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by this Court in M.P. No.876 of 2020 whereby the order passed by the Additional District Judge to the Court of Ist Civil Judge, Class-I, Dewas on 16.12.2019 in Summary Suit RCS B No.40/2019 allowing unconditional leave to defend under Order 37 Rule 3 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on mere technical ground and all the documents were not supplied by the petitioner herein to the respondent herein as per order 37 Rule 3 (1) of the Code.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 17-02-2023 19:21:38 2 3] This review has been filed merely on the ground that the learned Judge of the trial Court has granted the leave to defend the defendant on technical ground on non-supply of proper documents to the defendant, despite the fact that it is a settled law that the application seeking leave to defend can only be decided on merits. 4] Counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that the attention of this Court could not be drawn to the fact that the defendant after entering his appearance sought time to file reply on 24.09.2019 and 24.10.2019 also, but by that time no application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of CPC for leave to defend was filed and thus, it is submitted that the order under review may be recalled and the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court to decide the application of the respondent seeking leave to defend afresh.

5] Shri Sumit Samvatsar, counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as this Court has already considered all aspects of the matter and there is no error apparent, which may call for the review of the order. 6] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7] From the record, it is found that this Court has passed the order reflecting upon all the legal and factual aspects of the matter and came to the conclusion that despite service of summons, the plaintiff did not file the relevant documents, which was filed along with the plaint and the record also did not reflects that if the plaintiff has already furnished all the documents filed along with plaint to the defendant and in such circumstances, this Court finds that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, which may require reconsideration of the issue already decided, nor this Court finds that the order Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 17-02-2023 19:21:38 under review suffers from any serious illegality which may call for correction in exercise of jurisdictional error. In view of the same, no case for review is made 3 out. Pankaj 8] Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. (SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 17-02-2023 19:21:38