M. J. C. SHARMA ( 1 ) AS these two appeals involve identical facts and similar issues, we propose to dispose ofboth the appeals by this common order. ( 2 ) THIS appeal preferred by the defendant is directed against the impugned judgment dated 24 1 1995 dismissing the application filed by the appellant defendant under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 22. 3. 1990 in the suit filed by the plaintiff bank numbered as Suit No. 2941/1988. ( 3 ) THE respondent bank as plaintiff filed a suit being Suit No. 2941/1988 against the appellant defendant claiming a sum oi rs. 11,91,708. 70p, with interest and cost under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said suit, notices were issued to the appellant defendant. On notices having been served on Shri Vinay Kapoor in accordance with the provisions of Order 29 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said service was accepted as valid service. As the defendant appellant failed to contest the suit, an ex parte decree for a sum of Rs. 11 1,91,708. 70p was passed by the learned Single Judge in the suit on 22. 3. 1990 holding that the appellant defendant was liable to pay the said sum together with interest and cost till the realisation of the decretal amount. ( 4 ) AFTER the appellant came to know about the aforesaid ex parte decree it filed an application under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for setting aside the ex parte decree. The said application filed by the appellant defendant under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken up for consideration and after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge by his order dated 24. 1. 1995 rejected the application and maintained the ex parte decree against which the present appeal has been preferred. ( 5 ) THIS appeal preferred by the appellant defendant is against the impugned judgment dated 24. 1. 1. 1995 rejected the application and maintained the ex parte decree against which the present appeal has been preferred. ( 5 ) THIS appeal preferred by the appellant defendant is against the impugned judgment dated 24. 1. 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the application filed by the defendant appellant under the provisions of Order 3 7 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 8. 5. 1990 passed against the appellant in Suit No. 1215/88. ( 6 ) THE respondent plaintiff bank filed a suit being Suit No. 1215/1988 against the appellant defendant claiming a sum of Rs. 15,84. 267. 70p under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said suit, notice having been issued and the same having been served on Mrs. Khosla, the same was accepted as valid service within the meaning of Order 29 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the appellant defendant failed to put in entry/appearance in the suit though it was served, the learned Single Judge proceeded in the suit and an ex parte decree was passed by the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit holding that the appellant defendant was liable to pay the said sum together with interest and cost till the realisation of the decretal amount. ( 7 ) AFTER the appellant came to know about the aforesaid ex parte decree, it filed an application under Order 37 Rule 4 before the learned Single Judge seeking for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit. The learned Single Judge took up the aforesaid application for consideration and after hearing the parties rejected the said application and maintained the ex parte decree passed, as against which the present appeal has been preferred. ( 8 ) BEFORE proceeding to deal with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the merit of the case, we would like to consider the issue with regard to the maintainability of the present appeals. Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down a special procedure for trial of suits in a summary procedure. A suit falling in clauses of suits specified by Rule 2 ( 1) could be filed at the option of the plaintiff either as a summary suitor as a suit in the ordinary manner. Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down a special procedure for trial of suits in a summary procedure. A suit falling in clauses of suits specified by Rule 2 ( 1) could be filed at the option of the plaintiff either as a summary suitor as a suit in the ordinary manner. When a summary suit isinstituted by the plaintiff,the suit could be tried in accordance with the provisions laid down under Order 37. Rule 4 of the Order 37 also specifically lays down the procedure for setting aside an ex parte decree passed in such a suit tried according to summary procedure. The said provision is quoted hereunder: "after decree the Court may, under special circumstances, set aside the decree, and if necessary stay or set aside execution, and may give leave to the defendant to appear to the summons and to defend the suit, if it seems reasonable to the Court so to do, and on such terms as the Court thinks fit. " ( 9 ) UNDER the aforesaid provisions, the Court can under special circumstances set aside the decree. It would be appropriate to mention here that in an ordinary suit when an ex parte decree is passed, the same could be allowed to be set aside by the Court under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13. Under the said provisions, the defendant may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside if the defendant satisfies the court that the summons were not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. Thus under Rule 13 of Order 9, either of the two ingredients namely, (1) the summonses or summons was not duly served on the applicant or (2) he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing is required to be satisfied. Order 9 Rule 13 operates in a separate field than that of the provisions of Order 37 Rule 4. There is also a difference between the two expressions namely, special circumstances occurring in Rule 4 of Order 37 and sufficient cause occurring in Rule 13 of Order 9. Order 9 Rule 13 operates in a separate field than that of the provisions of Order 37 Rule 4. There is also a difference between the two expressions namely, special circumstances occurring in Rule 4 of Order 37 and sufficient cause occurring in Rule 13 of Order 9. ( 10 ) IT would be appropriate to mention that the Legislature in its wisdom has not included under Order 43 that rejection of an application for setting aside the decree passed under Order 37 should also be made applicable, whereas, as against the order rejecting an application for setting aside the decree passed under Order 9 Rule l3 an appeal would lie under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The exclusion to include the provisions of Rule 4 of Order 3 7 under the provisions of Order 43 would necessarily imply that no appeal lies when the application filed by a party under Rule 4 of Order 37 is rejected by the Court. ( 11 ) HOWEVER since we heard the appellants on merit also we propose to consider and appreciate the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants in the present appeals with regard to the merit of the appeals. ( 12 ) AFTER the appellant defendant filed the application under Order 37 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the present appeals before the learned Single Judge, issues were framed on the aforesaid application. The learned Single Judge further directed the parties to lead evidence by way of affidavits. In both the appeals,the appellant plaintiff failed to file any affidavit in evidence pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly it was deemed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant had failed in substantiating the averments made in the application filed under Order 37 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order further recorded that the facts stated in the application show that the applications had been preferred grossly belatedly and that no sufficient cause was made out for setting aside the ex parte decree even prima facie on the averments as made in the application. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order further recorded that the facts stated in the application show that the applications had been preferred grossly belatedly and that no sufficient cause was made out for setting aside the ex parte decree even prima facie on the averments as made in the application. The learned Single Judge further found that summons were received by the employee of thed efendant appellant company and the same was a valid service within the meaning of Order 29 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 13 ) IT is settled law that a party is expected and is bound to prove the case as alleged by him and as covered by the issues framed. Pleadings of the parties are required to be proved either through filing affidavit in support thereof or by producing oral evidence thereto. It is in accordance with the main principle of practice that the party is bound to prove what is pleaded. The party can only succeed accord ing to what was alleged and proved. In the present appeals, on the applications filed by the appellant defendant seeking for setting aside the ex parte decree passed under Order 3 7, the learned Single Judge in clear terms directed the parties to lead evidence by way of affidavits. The appellant defendant failed to file any affidavit in evidence pursuant to the aforesaid order. In that view of the matter there was no proof at all of the allegations made in the application and the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the defendant appellant has failed in substantiating the averments made in the application. ( 14 ) IN the aforesaid view of the matter, it is not ne6essary for us to deal with the other findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. However, we may record that so far the said findings are also concerned, the counsel for the appellant defendant failed to point out and establish any infirmity in respect of the said findings as well. In the result, the appeals have no merit and are accordingly dismissed.