A notice was issued by the Adjudicating Authority to the Corporate Debtor in Section 7 Application filed by the Financial Creditor on 11.02.2022, which notice was served on the Corporate Debtor(Appellant herein) on 07.03.2022. 29.03.2022, was the first date of hearing before the Adjudicating Authority, when the Corporate Debtor was required to appear. On the first date of hearing, the Corporate Debtor appeared through Counsel and made a request for time to file a reply, which request was turned down by the impugned order and Adjudicating Authority proceeded to admit the Application by order of the same date, that is, 29.03.2022. NCLAT held that sub-rule (3) of Rule 37 does not provide for any consequence in event of non-filing of reply before the next date of hearing. Rule 37 is procedural Rule and procedural Rules are there to assist the adjudication of the dispute by Adjudicating Authority. Rule 37, sub-rule (3) cannot be read to mean that on non-filing of reply by the Corporate Debtor before the date of hearing, he can neither ask for any time, nor can be granted any time by the Adjudicating Authority to file the reply. On non-appearance of Corporate Debtor on the next date of hearing, Adjudicating Authority is not to mechanically proceed to dispose of the Application ex-parte. When a Corporate Debtor, who does not appear on the date fixed, is entitled to a reasonable opportunity before proceeding ex-parte, a Corporate Debtor who appeared on the first date of hearing cannot be put to in worse position than a Corporate Debtor who does not appear. The NCLT Rules, 2016 namely – Rule 34 as well as Rule 51 entitles the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure in accordance with the rules of natural justice.