JUDGMENT 1. - This is defendant's revision directed against the order dated 15.5.1992 passed by learned Dist. Judge Udaipur in Civil misc. application No. 28/91. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that an ex parte decree was passed by the learned court below on 27.9.1989 against the defendant-petitioner. An application has been Filed by the petitioner under O. 37 R. 4 C.P.C. read with S. 151 on 12.2.1991 alongwith an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit. After hearing both the parties and considering the material on record and case law, the court below dismissed the petitioner's application dated 12.2.1991 on 15.5.1992 against which the defendant-petitioner has filed this revision. 3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mehta that there was no proper service of summons was effected on the petitioner as required under section 5 C.P.C. as the summons did not contain copy of the plaint. He has also argued that there was sufficient cause for not appearing in the suit as the defendant had no knowledge of it, so his application should have been allowed, and the court has acted without jurisdiction with material irregularity in dismissing the application. 4. On the other hand Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that against the ex parte decree dated 27.9.1989, the defendant filed an application for setting aside decree on 12.2.1991 and die defendant has failed to explain the delay of each day for not filing application in time. He had also submitted that the defendant had full knowledge of the case and he was properly served. He has further submitted that the court below has rightly passed the order. 5. I have heard rival contention of the parties and gone through the record carefully. 6. In the instant case, the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of loan under section 37 C.P.C. Notices were issued to the defendant through court at Gurgaon and also be registered post. As per the report on the court's summon dated 26.7.1989, that on receiving the information of summons, the defendant absconded, so the summon was pasted at his residence. While the other summon was sent by registered post but the same was returned with the endorsement 'refused'. As per the report on the court's summon dated 26.7.1989, that on receiving the information of summons, the defendant absconded, so the summon was pasted at his residence. While the other summon was sent by registered post but the same was returned with the endorsement 'refused'. Under such circumstances, the court below passed an ex parte decree against the defendant having regard to the fact that the defendant has been duly served with the notice. 7. So far as the contention of Mr. Mehta that service was not proper as summons did not contain copy of the plaint, it is futile to say that summons did not contain copy of the plaint. As it is obvious from the registered letter which returned with the remark of 'refused' by the postman which contains copy of the plaint. Further as per report of process server on the summons that on being absconding of the petitioner on receiving information of the summons, a copy was pasted on the house of the defendant-petitioner. Thus, there is ample proof on the record regarding proper service on the defendant and in view of this there is no force in this contention. 8. As regards the other contention that there is a difference in O.9 R. 13 C.P.C. and O.37 R. 4 C.P.C. Under O.9 R. 13 C.P.C., there must be 'sufficient cause' for setting aside exparte decree whereas under O.37 R.4 C.P.C., there is word 'special circumstances', so there must be special reason or special ground for setting aside exparte decree when the suit is filed under section 37 C.P.C. Thus, it can be said that the words 'sufficient cause' and 'special circumstance' are not one and same. In view of this, in a suit filed under section 37 C.P.C., there must be speciality circumstance as a ground or reason for setting aside decree under O.37 R.4 C.P.C. in addition to this there must be sufficient cause. Mr. Mehta has not disputed this legal position. In this view of the matter Mohanlal v. Om Prakash, AIR 1989-132 , is fully applicable to the facts of this case. 9. As stated above, the court below after considering the application has not found sufficient reason or special circumstance for setting aside the decree. Mr. Mehta has not disputed this legal position. In this view of the matter Mohanlal v. Om Prakash, AIR 1989-132 , is fully applicable to the facts of this case. 9. As stated above, the court below after considering the application has not found sufficient reason or special circumstance for setting aside the decree. Undoubtedly, it is within the competence and jurisdiction of the court to condone the delay but in this case the court below has found that the delay has not been explained by the 3 petitioner as required by the law. Furthermore, according to the defendant-petitioner himself, he got the information of the ex parte decree on 22.1.1991 but he filed the application for setting aside decree on 12.2.1991. Thus, the defendant-petitioner has failed to explain the delay in filing application even after getting information. Therefore, this contention has also no substance. Under the circumstances, the discretion exercised by the learned court below in not condoning the delay is neither perverse nor arbitrary, so as to call for any interference. 10. Accordingly, I hold that the order passed by the trial court on 15.5.1992 is perfect and it has acted within its jurisdiction. There is no illegality or material irregularity committed by the court below in passing the impugned order.In the result, this revision petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******