R. C. Lahoti, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of an application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendant on 18. 8. 93 seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree dated 7. 8. 91 in a suit under Order 37 of the CPC. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,03,385. 00 being licence fee due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff under licence deed dated 30th November, 1988, confirmation deed dated 31st March. 1989, an acknowledgement dated 8. 12. 89 and letter of acknowledgment dated 18. 9. 89. ( 3 ) SUMMONS for judgment in the suit having been served, the defendant filed an application for leave to defend. The application is belated and hence is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend. It is noteworthy that in the application for leave to defend, the defendant has nowhere disputed her possession as licencee over the suit premises. What has been disputed is the right of the plaintiff to institute the suit. It is stated that the plaintiff has been an advocate of one Lakshmi Chand who is the person holding leasehold rights in the property owned by the D. D. A. ; the plaintiff has misused his position of an advocate by securing the licence deed in his favour; Lakshmi Chand being the real person entitled to bring the suit, this suit at the instance of the plaintiff may not lie. ( 4 ) THE player for leave to defend was contested by the plaintiff. The application came up for hearing on 11. 7. 91, 18. 7. 91 and 30. 7. 91, but none appeared for the defendant. On 7. 8. 91 the Court directed the application seeking leave to defend and the application seeking condonation of delay to be dismissed for want of prosecution and then decreed the suit. ( 5 ) MORE than 2 years after the date of the decree the present application has been filed. ( 6 ) THE only ground raised in the application is that the defendant held engaged some other advocate who did not give response to the defendant and when the defendant got the suit record examined, she became aware of the facts of the proceedings. ( 6 ) THE only ground raised in the application is that the defendant held engaged some other advocate who did not give response to the defendant and when the defendant got the suit record examined, she became aware of the facts of the proceedings. ( 7 ) TWO positions of the law are well-settled (i) every absence of a counsel does not constitute a sufficient cause for a litigant; the litigant shall have to show that there was a sufficient cause for default in appearance of the counsel. {see Bank of Baroda v. . Sansar Chand 1994 (30) DRJ 270 ; (ii) provisions of Order 37 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code bear a distinction from those contained in Order 9 Rule 13 CI c. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code maysucceed on showing availability of a sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the defendant but to be entitled to be a relief under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC, the defendant shall have to show existence of special circumstances to set-aside the decree; the defendant shall have to show not only a sufficient cause for default in appearance, but shall also have to show a substantial defence to raise in the suit of which he has been deprived by the ex-parte decree. ( 8 ) THE defendant/applicant, in the case at hand, fails on both the counts. She has utterly failed in showing a sufficient cause for default in appearance by her and/or by her counsel on the date on which the case was called for hearing. She does not sufficiently explain the delay in moving the application between 7. 8. 91 and 18. 8. 93. A perusal of the documents filed by the plaintiff do not prima facie suggest a possibility of their having been forged or brought into existence by misusing defendant s signatures on blank papers. The earlier application seeking leave to defend does not at all show how and in what manner the defendant could have been made to sign blank paper bv the plaintiff. The application does not show the defendant having paid the licence fee to the real owner Lakshmi Chand, if atall she was holding as a licencee under him. In all probability the defendant would not have succeeded in securing leave to defend in the suit. The application does not show the defendant having paid the licence fee to the real owner Lakshmi Chand, if atall she was holding as a licencee under him. In all probability the defendant would not have succeeded in securing leave to defend in the suit. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the defendant s application does not merit being allowed. IA 7341 /93 is rejected. Consequently, the ex-parte decree dated 7. 8. 91 stands.