D.L. MEHTA, J.—Plaintiff-petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated, 25th April, 1989 has preferred this revision petition before this Court. Plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit on the basis of the Hundi said to have been executed by the non-petitioners in his favour. 2. Notice was issued to the defendants under Order 37 Rule-2 for appearance in the Court. Notice was served, on all the three defendants. Defendant No. 2 appeared in person and all defendants were represented by Advocate, Shri Nand Kishore. Rule-2 is only enabling provision in favour of the petitioner plaintiff, which provides that the plaintiff may invoke the provisions of Order-37 for the purpose of invoking the summary character of the suit. It is an admitted position that Mr. Nand Kishore, Advocate represented all the three defendant. Application was moved by the plaintiff on 4.9.87 for the issuance of the summons under Order 37 Rule 3 sub-rule-4. Summons were issued under sub-rule-4 of Rule-3 of Order 37 in form-IV A. One of the defendants, Surendra Prakash was present in the court, as such, summons was served to him in person-through his Advocate, Nand Kishore. Non-petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and non-petitioner No.3 is one of the partners. Mr. Nand Kishore might have suggested to the Court that though, he is representing non-petitioner No. 1 and 3, even then notice may be issued to defendant in person. Suggestions were accepted and the summons were despatched. Summons in Form No. 4 A were served by registered post on 18th March 1988.. It was submitted by the non-petitioners that summons were not served before the trial court as such, the inquiry was made and Post Office reported that acknowledgement receipt is missing. Summons were served on 18.3.88. Inquiry report was made available to the Court before 28th July 1988. On 28th July 1988, the Court passed the order that the registered notices which were sent under Form No. 4 A have been served to respondent No. 1 to 3 as per report of the Post Office. The case may be listed on 12th September 1988. This order was passed in the presence of the Advocate for both the parties. On 12.9.88 the Presiding Officer was not present, as such, the case was adjourned to 26th October 1988. On 26.10.88 the application for leave to appeal was submitted on behalf of the defendants before the Court. The case may be listed on 12th September 1988. This order was passed in the presence of the Advocate for both the parties. On 12.9.88 the Presiding Officer was not present, as such, the case was adjourned to 26th October 1988. On 26.10.88 the application for leave to appeal was submitted on behalf of the defendants before the Court. However, no application for the condonation of the delay was submitted. On 26th November 1988 application for the condonation of delay was submitted by the defendants. It was submitted therein that he got the information from his Advocate about the submission of he application under sub-rule 5 of rule-3 of Order 37. On 25th November. As such he has submitted the application and prayed that the delay from 26.10.88 to 26.11.88 may be condoned. In support of the said application affidavit of Surendra Prakash, defendant No. 2 was also filed It will not be out of place here to mention that Surendra Prakash submitted one application on 7.10.87 under rule 5 of Order 37 C.P.C. He prayed therein that the plaintiff may be directed to produce the original documents and, in case, the prayer is not accepted the suit may be tried as regular suit. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule-3 of Order 37 lays down the procedure in summary suit. In a summary suit the plaintiff has to serve on the defendant alongwith summons under Rule-2, a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto. After the service the defendant may enter appearance by person or by his pleader on any date on such service There is no particular form prescribed for entering appearance. When the defendant puts appearance, under rule-2 the plaintiff has to serve thereafter a summon for judgment in Form No 4A in Appendix-B, returnable not less than 10 days from the date of service In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the defendants put appearance under rule-2 and, thereafter the application was moved for the service of summons for judgment in form No. 4A. 4. This suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against a partnership firm represented by its two partners, Surendra Prakash and Girdhari Lal on 4.9.87 Summons for judgment in Form 4A was served on Surendra Prakash in person who was present in the Court. 4. This suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against a partnership firm represented by its two partners, Surendra Prakash and Girdhari Lal on 4.9.87 Summons for judgment in Form 4A was served on Surendra Prakash in person who was present in the Court. It is an admitted position in this case that one Nand Kishore Advocate is representing all the three defendants and he was also present in the court on 4.9.87. Defendant No. 1 is the partnership firm. Defendant No. 3 is one of the partners. Defendant No. 2 Who is the other partner was present in the Court, has already been served and it was not necessary to send the summons in Form No. 4-A to the defendant for getting the summons served on them in person, particularly when all the three defendants were represented by Mr. Nand Kishore, Advocate and who was present in person and one set of service of summons to defendant No. 2 was made through him in the Court. Thus, all the defendants had the knowledge that the plantiff has moved an application and has prayed that the judgment and summons have been issued in Form No. 4-A Summons were sent by the regist-ered post and Post Office has reported that summons were delivered on 18th March 1988 Even after the receipt of this report of the Post Office before 28.7.88 the defendant remained silent and has not taken any steps on 28.7.88. It is a case in which it seems that there may be a case of ignorance of law or lapse in one way or the other. The case was adjourned for 12.9.87. The Presiding Officer was not present as such, the case was adjourned on on 26.19.88 For the first time the application for leave to defend was moved on 26.10.88 by all the three defendants jointly. Even on this they date have not taken care that it is their duty to move an application for condonation of delay. In January 1989, application under section-5 of the Limitation Act was moved and prayer was only made that the delay which has occurred in between October 1988 and November 1989 may be condoned. No prayer has been made about the entire delay. In January 1989, application under section-5 of the Limitation Act was moved and prayer was only made that the delay which has occurred in between October 1988 and November 1989 may be condoned. No prayer has been made about the entire delay. It was submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners that on 7.10.87 application was moved by the defendant No. 2 that the plaintiff may be asked to produce the original documents. This application was moved under Rule-5 of Order 37 C.P.C.A further prayer was made that in case the prayer is not accepted then the suit may be tried as a regular suit under Rule7. This application is not an application for leave to defend. Even if it is assumed for arguments sake that this application is an application for leave to defend, even then, by this date, counsel for the non-petitioner has not filed any application for condonation of delay which has occurred between 4th September 1987 and 7th October 1987. Non-petitioner No. 2 is a partner of the firm and was handed over summons in the presence of the Advocate in the Court on 4th September 1987. On or before 14th September it was necessary to move an application for leave to defend. No explanation is forth coming even now why the application for leave to defend was not submitted earlier and what is the reason for the delay between 14th September and 7th October 1987. The application moved on 7th October cannot be treated as an application for leave to defend. Thus, through out the case of the defendant has been taken very lightly by the counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant. 5. Rule-5 of the Order 37 C.P.C provides that in any proceeding under this Order the court may order the bill, hundi or note on which the suit is founded to be forthwith deposited with an Officer of the Court. Thus, this rule is independent of rule-3 and any application moved under rule-5 of Order 37 cannot be considered as an application moved under rule-3 and the defendant has no right to postpone the making of the application, under sub-clause-5 of rule-3 of Order 37 C.P.C. Application under Rule 5 of Order 37 C.P.C. can be moved at any stage. 6. 6. Rule-3 has been substituted by the Amending Act of 1976, to provide procedure for appearance of defendant and consequence of non-appearance of the defendant. It will not be out of place here to mention that Order-37 deals with the summary procedure of trial in certain types of cases. In the summary suit the defendant is not the same as in the ordinary suit entitled as of right to defend the suit. He must apply for leave to defend within ten days from the date of service upon him and such leave will be granted only if the affidavit filed by the defendant discloses such facts as will make it incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove for consideration or such other-facts as the Court may deem sufficient for granting leave. 7. Whether Section-5 of the Limitation Act can be applied or should be applied, is again a question for the consideration of the Court. Under Rule-4 of Order 37, the Court may under special circumstances, set aside the decree and if necessary, stay or set aside the execution and may give leave to the defendant to appear and to defend the suit. The expression "special circumstances" is not synonymous with "sufficient cause" occuring in order 9 Rule-13 C.P.C. 8. In the case of Subhash Raina vs. Suraj Prakash (1), their Lordships have held that the mere fact that the defendant was busy at some place and was undergoing training, cannot be said a special circumstances and entitling him to claim benefit under rule-4 when it. was possible for him to engage a lawyer and to instruct him to seek leave to defend the suit. 9. For invoking the provisions of Section-5 of the Limitation Act or for invoking the grant of relief of condonation of delay it is necessary for the defendant to satisfy the two conditions, namely(i) there was no due service of summons in the suit or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from getting leave to defend the suit and (ii) he has a substantial defence to raise in the suit. The special circumstances mentioned in rule-4 also lays down the principle about the satisfaction of the Court in the matter of condoning the delay and in moving the application for leave to defend. If the defendant does not apply or obtains a leave to defend the plaintiff has a right to enforce the judgment forthwith. The special circumstances mentioned in rule-4 also lays down the principle about the satisfaction of the Court in the matter of condoning the delay and in moving the application for leave to defend. If the defendant does not apply or obtains a leave to defend the plaintiff has a right to enforce the judgment forthwith. Application moved on 4.9.87 by defendant No. 2 cannot be said to be an application under clause (5) of rule-3 of Order-37 C.P.C. In this application prayer was not made that the defendant should be granted leave to defend the suit. No reasons have been given in the application. This is an application under rule-5 for the production of document in the court and it was further prayed therein that the suit may be tried as a regular suit under rule-7 of Order 37 if the application is not accepted. Sub-rule 5 of ruie-3 of Order-37 C.P.C. provides that the defendant should move within ten days for the service of summons for judgment by affidavit or otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suits. There is no prayer that he should be allowed to defend the suit and the leave should be granted. 10. Apart from that, a service on a partner is a service on the firm. It is an admitted case that the defendant No. 2 was served. Defendants No. 1 to 3 were represented by a common counsel Nand Kishore. The counsel was present when the summon was served on defendant No. 2. Apart from that on the suggestion of the counsel, though it was not necessary, summons were served under form No. 4A to the defendants No. 1 and 3. Postal Department has reported that summons were delivered on 18th March 1988. In the application for the condonation of delay prayer has been made only for condoning the delay from 26th October to 26th November 1988. No prayer has been made in the application for the period prior to 26th October 1988. Counsel for the party was present throughout on. Postal Department has reported that summons were delivered on 18th March 1988. In the application for the condonation of delay prayer has been made only for condoning the delay from 26th October to 26th November 1988. No prayer has been made in the application for the period prior to 26th October 1988. Counsel for the party was present throughout on. every date of hearing and the issuance of summons is only an intimation to the party that an application has been moved under sub-rule 4 of rule 3 of Order-37 C.P.C. He should moved within ten days from the date of such service for the grant of leave to defend the suit. Thus, I do not find on record any material by which the defendant can be given any relief in this case. It will not be out of place here to mention that in the case of Bikram Das vs. Financial Commissioner (2). Their Lordships have held that the delay of every day will have to be explained. This Court in the case of Kripal Singh vs. Lakh Singh (3) considered that mentioning of a Tarikh Peshi in the form may lead the party to. mis-interpret the position and, in such cases, the delay maybe condoned. Sub-clause 7 of rule-3 provides that the Court for sufficient cause shown by the defendant excuse the delay of the defendant in applying for leave to defend the suit. In the instant case, the defendant has failed to "show any sufficient cause which may entitle him in a normal course to get the relief of condonation of delay under sub-rule 7 of rule-3 of Order 37. Learned Additional District Judge has not considered this position in specific way particularly relating to the position of the period prior to 26th October 1988, i. e. delay of the period between 14.9.87 to 25.10.88. 11. Even in the application the delay has not at all been explained of this period and there is no application for the condonation of delay of the period lying between 14th September 1987 to 25th October 1988. 12. Order 37 has been inserted In its present form vide Amending Act of 1976. The object of the law and particularly Order 37 is that the cases should be decided summarily as far as practicable and, at the same time, the Court should be vigilant to see that justice is done. 12. Order 37 has been inserted In its present form vide Amending Act of 1976. The object of the law and particularly Order 37 is that the cases should be decided summarily as far as practicable and, at the same time, the Court should be vigilant to see that justice is done. Rule-1 of Order 37 provides that the operation of the summary procedure may be restricted by the High Court only to such categories of suits as it deems proper and may further restrict, enlarge or vary the categories of the suits to be brought under the operation of the order. 13. I do not know whether the proviso has been discussed by the High Court in its meeting any time. I think that this matter has not been discussed by the Rajasthan High Court. Suits of higher valuation like the present suit may require a detailed determination. Some-times, even a suit of petty nature needs judicial scrutiny in a cautious way particularly when the cases are against the persons of caste and tribes of the weaker Sections of the Society. The object of this order is the summary trial for the early disposal, but, at the same time, to see that the justice is done and it should appear that the justice is done keeping this in mind number of factors including the nature of the suit. Broad generalisation of the law may lead to injustice if not applied looking to the specificities of a particular nature of the suit or the parties. For this reason, 1 am of the view that the condonation of delay should be considered looking to the specificities of the suit and not on only the basis of the broad principles laid down which may in some cases, go against the enquiry and justice. 14. This is a case in which there is no application for the condonation of delay and there is no proper representation on behalf of the defendants. I hava gone through every proceeding of the case as the file of the original court is with me and I am convinced that it is not the case of mistake of the defendant, that, it is a case of the ignorance of the law by the counsel for the defendant and of the habit of prolonging the case for no cause whatsoever. Ignorance of lawyer may be a sufficient and a special ground in some cases for condoning the delay and I consider it to be a case in which there was no proper representation by the lawyer appearing on behalf of the defendant. In such circumstances, I will not like to disturb the order of the Court below. However, a costs of Rs. 7,000/- is imposed on the defendant in the matter of condoning the delay and granting leave to defend. In case, the defendant-petitioner does not pay Rs. 7,000/- to the petitioner with in 1-1/2 months then the Court shall announce the judgment and the leave granted to the defendant shall stand automatically vacated. 15. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.