{"id":218167,"date":"2019-08-17T08:48:51","date_gmt":"2019-08-17T03:18:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=218167"},"modified":"2019-08-19T13:12:07","modified_gmt":"2019-08-19T07:42:07","slug":"del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"Del HC | Discrepancy of not filing “leave to defend” under Or. 37 R. 3(5) in response to summary suit could be ignored in interest of justice"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High court:\u00a0<\/strong>Vibhu Bhkaru, J. dismissed a revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC impugning an order passed by the Additional District Judge in the subject summary suit whereby the respondents were granted unconditional Leave to Defend.<\/p>\n

The respondents had defaulted in repaying the loan extended to them by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of the loan under Order 37 CPC. The respondents, in response to the aforesaid summary suit, filed a reply to the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 37 Rule 3(4) CPC for “summons for judgment”, instead of an application under Order 37 Rule 5 for “leave to defend”. By the impugned order the trial judge held that the said discrepancy could be ignored, and the reply filed on behalf of the respondents could be treated as leave to defend in the interest of justice. He accordingly granted the respondents an unconditional leave to defend. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present revision.<\/p>\n

Preeti Singh, Advocate for the petitioner contended that trial court grossly erred in treating the reply filed by the respondents as an application for leave to defend under Order 37 Rule 3(5).<\/p>\n

The High Court, however, was of the view that the contentions of the petitioner were not persuasive. It was observed:\u00a0It is relevant to bear in mind the object of prescribing the procedure for seeking leave to defend under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC. The rationale for evolving such a procedure, requiring the defendant to file a leave to defend, is to enable the Court to evaluate whether there exist any triable issue warranting the suit to be set down for trial. In the present case, the reply filed by the respondents had clearly set out the grounds of defence.” <\/strong>It was reiterated that the rules of procedure are meant to aid the delivery of justice and a minor infraction of such rules of procedure ought not to visit the concerned party with consequences which substantially defeat the ends of justice.<\/p>\n

Also, the petitioner did not contest the trial court’s conclusion that the respondents had a reasonable defence. In such view of the matter, the Court dismissed the revision petition.[Netrapal Singh v. Ravinder Kumar Kalyanai, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9622<\/b><\/a>, decided on 07-08-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High court:\u00a0Vibhu Bhkaru, J. dismissed a revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC impugning an order passed by the Additional District <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[11191,37099,31620,37100,37101],"class_list":["post-218167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-leave-to-defend","tag-order-37-rule-35-cpc","tag-section-115-cpc","tag-summary-suit","tag-summons-for-judgment"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC | Discrepancy of not filing "leave to defend" under Or. 37 R. 3(5) in response to summary suit could be ignored in interest of justice | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Del HC | Discrepancy of not filing "leave to defend" under Or. 37 R. 3(5) in response to summary suit could be ignored in interest of justice\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High court:\u00a0Vibhu Bhkaru, J. dismissed a revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC impugning an order passed by the Additional District\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-08-17T03:18:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-08-19T07:42:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC | Discrepancy of not filing \\\"leave to defend\\\" under Or. 37 R. 3(5) in response to summary suit could be ignored in interest of justice | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-08-17T03:18:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-08-19T07:42:07+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Del HC | Discrepancy of not filing “leave to defend” under Or. 37 R. 3(5) in response to summary suit could be ignored in interest of justice\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC | Discrepancy of not filing \"leave to defend\" under Or. 37 R. 3(5) in response to summary suit could be ignored in interest of justice | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Del HC | Discrepancy of not filing \"leave to defend\" under Or. 37 R. 3(5) in response to summary suit could be ignored in interest of justice","og_description":"Delhi High court:\u00a0Vibhu Bhkaru, J. dismissed a revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC impugning an order passed by the Additional District","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-08-17T03:18:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-08-19T07:42:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/","name":"Del HC | Discrepancy of not filing \"leave to defend\" under Or. 37 R. 3(5) in response to summary suit could be ignored in interest of justice | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-08-17T03:18:51+00:00","dateModified":"2019-08-19T07:42:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Del HC | Discrepancy of not filing “leave to defend” under Or. 37 R. 3(5) in response to summary suit could be ignored in interest of justice"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":219284,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/09\/del-hc-trial-court-cannot-reconsider-issue-of-maintainability-of-suit-under-or-37-cpc-where-once-summons-have-been-issued-and-served-on-defendant\/","url_meta":{"origin":218167,"position":0},"title":"Del HC | Trial court cannot reconsider issue of maintainability of suit under Or. 37 CPC where once summons have been issued and served on defendant","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 9, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. allowed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby the suit filed by the petitioner under Order 37\u00a0(summary procedure)\u00a0of the Civil Procedure Code was directed to be treated as an ordinary suit. A suit under Order 37 was filed by the petitioner\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":225347,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/10\/mad-hc-non-service-of-copies-of-plaint-is-not-a-ground-for-converting-a-summary-suit-filed-under-or-37-cpc-into-a-regular-suit\/","url_meta":{"origin":218167,"position":1},"title":"Mad HC | Non-service of copies of plaint is not a ground for converting a summary suit filed under Or. 37 CPC into a regular suit","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 10, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court:\u00a0V. Bharathidasan, J., dismissed a revision petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant to convert the original summary suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 37 CPC into a regular suit was dismissed. The respondent had filed a suit\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":268455,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/15\/a-suit-cannot-be-summarily-decreed-until-the-claim-stands-duly-proved-mad-hc-analyses-rules-of-evidence-vis-a-vis-order-xiii-a-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":218167,"position":2},"title":"A suit cannot be summarily decreed until the claim stands duly proved; Mad HC analyses Rules of Evidence Vis a Vis Order XIII A CPC","author":"Editor","date":"June 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, J. remarked that a suit cannot be summarily decreed at the instance of a plaintiff unless such plaintiff satisfies the court that the suit claim stands duly proved.\u00a0 The facts of the case are such that the first defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":218666,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/27\/mp-hc-plaint-filed-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-can-be-rejected-based-on-grounds-mentioned-in-rule-11-or-if-the-cause-of-action-has-not-been-disclosed\/","url_meta":{"origin":218167,"position":3},"title":"MP HC | Plaint filed under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC can be rejected based on grounds mentioned in Rule 11 or if the cause of action has not been disclosed","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: Prakash Shrivastava, J., dismissed the revision petition filed by the respondents under Section 115 CPC where they challenged the order of the Trial Court, whereby their application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. The respondents had filed the suit for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":244261,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/","url_meta":{"origin":218167,"position":4},"title":"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC","author":"Editor","date":"February 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: Rohit Arya, J., dismissed a revision petition which was filed after the dismissal of Petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The respondent\/wife and three children were plaintiffs in the suit seeking relief that they were entitled to half share of the property managed by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":263116,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/04\/grant-of-leave-to-defend-is-the-ordinary-rule-and-denial-is-an-exception-supreme-court-lays-down-detailed-guidelines-for-leave-to-defend-in-summary-suits\/","url_meta":{"origin":218167,"position":5},"title":"Grant of leave to defend is the ordinary rule and denial is an exception; Supreme Court lays down detailed guidelines for leave to defend in summary suits\u00a0 \u00a0","author":"Editor","date":"March 4, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: While clarifying the law on leave to defend, the Division Bench of Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari*, JJ., held that even if there remains a reasonable doubt about the probability of defence, sterner or higher conditions could be imposed while granting leave to defend but, denying the leave\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-98.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-98.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-98.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-98.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-98.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=218167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}