( 1 ) RULE. Mr. J. R. Shah, Advocate, waives service of Rule. The petitioner is original defendant against whom Summary Suit No. 5286 of 1992 for recovery of Rs. 71,156. 25 with running interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 55,650. 00 was filed by the respondent/original plaintiff in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. Summons of the suit was served upon husband of petitioner on 4-1-1993. As the petitioner did not enter appearance within ten days of service, the respondent/plaintiff moved an application for passing ex-parte decree. The learned Chamber Judge was pleased to pass ex-parte decree in terms of relief claimed, on 2-7-1993. From the record it also transpires that since the petitioner resides in Nasik in Maharashtra State, the decree was transferred to the Court at Nasik for execution and Darkhast Proceedings No. 172 of 1995 were initiated. The notice of Darkhast was also served upon the petitioner on 9- 2-1995. The petitioner entered her appearance and sought several adjournments till 31-3-1995 for filing reply. It is in this background that the filed Misc. Civil application No. 290 of 1995 under Order 37 Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside ex-parte decree. The learned Auxiliary Chamber Judge, upon hearing both the parties and appreciating rival contentions, rejected the application holding that ingredients of Order 37 Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code are not satisfied, consequently the decree cannot be set aside. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner/ original defendant has filed the present revision application.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned Advocates and perused the impugned order. It appears that in support of her case, the petitioner has mainly urged following points : (i) As the summons was not legally served, she was not knowing about the suit as a result of which could not appear. (ii) The petitioner is an illiterate lady from rural area and was unaware about court procedure. Before dwelling upon the contentions raised, it would be worthwhile to state that decree has been passed in summary suit filed under the provisions of Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, even for setting aside such decree, provisions of Order 37 would apply. Rule 1 of Order 37 deals with cases wherein summary suit can be filed. Rule 2 provides Rules for institution of summary suit. Rule 3 provides for procedure for appearance of defendant and consequent steps to be taken by plaintiff. Rule 4 deals with power of Court to set aside a decree and to stay execution depending upon facts and circumstances. It is true that Rule 4 of order 37 and Rule 13 of Order 9 of Civil Procedure Code deal with the same situation and the resultant effect would also be the same. But, in my view, both the provisions are not synonymous. While praying for setting aside a decree under rule 4 of Order 37, the aggrieved party has to show special circumstances which prevented him from entering appearance within the stipulated period. It cannot be gainsaid that as provided under Rule 3 in a summary Suit the defendant is required to enter appearance within ten days of service of summons.

( 3 ) IN case of Rule 13 of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, the aggrieved party has only to satisfy the Court about sufficient cause which prevented him from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. Therefore, whenever a party approaches the Court under Rule 4 Order 37 of the Code, he has to show not only sufficient cause but special circumstances which prevented from entering appearance to defend the suit. The words "special circumstances" used in Rule 4 has some different connotation than "sufficient cause". By "sufficient cause" we mean, a cause sufficient and reasonable to come in way rendering the defendant helpless to approach the Court within the stipulated period but "special circumstances" suggest that even by all reasonable efforts and due diligence it was beyond control to enter appearance. In other w