ORDER 1. This is a defendant's revision against the order dated 4.10.1993, passed in MJC No.2-B/90 by First Additional District Judge, Durg. 2. Facts giving rise to this revision are thus :- The non-applicant instituted a suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of a sum of Rs.37,000/- against the applicant. The applicant after the service of summons applied within ten days under Order 37 Rule 3(5) by affidavit to grant leave to defend. The applicant averred that he is a labourer who took loan of Rs. 7000/ from the non-applicant but it could not be paid by him. However, the non-applicant/plaintiff interpolated the bond by adding numerical figure of "3" before "7" so as to make the amount of loan as of Rs. 37,000/-. Similarly, the words were also interpolated in the writing so as to show that the applicant had taken Rs. 37,000/- and not Rs. 7000/-. The trial Court granted leave to defend conditionally on deposit of Rs. 7000/- in accordance with the second proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order 37. The applicant could not deposit the said amount of Rs. 7000/- within time fixed and made an application that he be permitted to furnish bank guarantee instead of deposit 'of cash amount. The said application was not pursued hence was dismissed. On failure of deposit of Rs. 7000/- and after hearing the non-applicant an ex-parte judgment under Order 37, Rule 3(6)(b) CPC was passed in favour of the non-applicant. When the decree was put in execution, the applicant raised objections against the excitability of the decree on various grounds. The objections so raised were rejected by the order dated 25.9.90 passed in' MJ.C. No. 24/90. Aggrieved of the said order the applicant preferred a Civil Revision No. 533 of 1990 before this Court which was dismissed on 9.3.1992 with observation that if the right of the applicant to apply under Order, 37, Rule 4 CPC survives, the applicant, if so advised, may move the Court below under Order 37, Rule 4 CPC or under any other provisions of law. If such an application is made, that shall be decided by the Court below in accordance with law. After the order of this Court, the applicant filed an application under Order 37, Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC before the Trial Court on 1.5.1992. The non-applicant after notice contested the said application. If such an application is made, that shall be decided by the Court below in accordance with law. After the order of this Court, the applicant filed an application under Order 37, Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC before the Trial Court on 1.5.1992. The non-applicant after notice contested the said application. The trial Court after enquiry held that the application is not maintainable as the applicant earlier applied for leave to furnish bank guarantee instead of deposit the admitted amount in cash, and as no 'special circumstances' for setting aside the ex-parte decree were found the trial Court dismissed the application. 3. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the application was maintainable as it was filed within the period of three years. In Rule 4 of Order 37 no period of limitation is prescribed, therefore the application was governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. 1963 Counsel cited P.N. Films Ltd. and another v. Overseas Films Corporation Ltd. (AIR 1958 Bombay 10). Subhash Raina v. Suraj Prakash ( AIR 1977 J.&.K. 30 ) and' Surya Prakash v. Mohd Jameel Khan (AIR 1995 Rajasthan 16). It was submitted that the trial Court misconstrued the earlier application as application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC which was not, as by that time ex-parte judgment and decree was not passed. The trial Court for minor inconsistencies in the evidence found that no 'special circumstances' as contemplated under Rule 4 of Order 37, have been established. It was submitted that the applicant is a labourer, while raising a Chimni he received crush injuries on 22.9.1989 and remained under treatment upto 10.10.1989. Because of the injury suffered he could not go to attend his work. When he recovered from the injury he filed objections before the Executing Court which were rejected. The applicant deposited Rs. 7000/- on 9.1.1991 pursuant to order passed in Civil Revision No. 533/90 on 11.12.1990. Thereafter, as the property of the applicant being auctioned so in compliance of this Court's order dated 11.1.1994 passed in the present revision has also deposited the total decretal amount. Though the expression 'special circumstances' under Rule 4 of Order 37 is not synonymous with 'sufficient cause occurring in Rule 13 of Order 9 CPC, looking to the circumstances that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in not depositing the amount of Rs. Though the expression 'special circumstances' under Rule 4 of Order 37 is not synonymous with 'sufficient cause occurring in Rule 13 of Order 9 CPC, looking to the circumstances that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in not depositing the amount of Rs. 7000/- within the time fixed by the trial Court. The 'special circumstances' in its encom pass would also include the 'sufficient cause'. The trial Court ought to have considered over all circumstances and the fact that the applicant being a labourer belonging to a weaker section of the society, who was prevented by sufficient cause in not depositing the amount of Rs. 7000/- due to financial stringencies ought to have set aside the decree. Now, as the total decretal amount has been deposited and that the applicant has a substantial defence in the suit the ex-parte decree be set aside, otherwise it will cause a great injustice to the applicant who has paid the amount of Rs. 37,000/- with its interest instead of amount of Rs. 7000/- of the loan so advanced. 4. Shri A.S. Jha, learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the application under Rule 4 of Order 37 was not maintainable. The applicant was not vigilant. He was granted leave to defend conditionally but he failed to deposit the admitted amount of Rs. 7000/-. Then he filed the application for furnishing bank guarantee. That application was also not pursued which was dismissed. Against that order the applicant filed revision which was dismissed as not maintainable. Then, the applicant filed an application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC. The trial Court also dismissed that application. The trial Court rightly held that the application of the applicant was not maintainable. On facts too the trial Court after holding an enquiry held that no 'special circumstance' has been established as envisaged by rule 4 of Order 37, therefore, rightly dismissed the application. Counsel cited the decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Subhash Raina' s case (supra) and a decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Mohan Lal v. Om prakash ( AIR 1989 Raj. 132 ) 5. Order 37 rule 4 CPC gives power to Court to set aside ex-parte decree which reads thus :-- "R. 4. Power 10 set aside decree -- After decree the Court may under special circumstances. set aside the decree and if necessary stay or set aside execution. 132 ) 5. Order 37 rule 4 CPC gives power to Court to set aside ex-parte decree which reads thus :-- "R. 4. Power 10 set aside decree -- 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. The power of the Court under this rule can be exercised only after the ex-parte decree is passed and not at the stage when the defendant was proceeded ex-parle in the suit. This rule does not prescribe any period of limitation within which the application has to be made, therefore, the period of limitation will be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. See the decisions of Bombay. Jammu & Kashmir and Rajasthan High Courts in P.N. Films Ltd., Suhash Raina and Surya Prakash (supra). Even after the dismissal of the Civil Revision No. 533 of 1990, the application filed under Order 37 rule 4 CPC was within the period of three years, therefore, it was within the period of limitation. 6. It takes us to the question whether there were 'special circumstances' for setting aside the ex-parte decree as contemplated by rule 4 of Order 37. The expression special circumstances' certainly is not synonymous with 'sufficient cause' occurring in rule 13 of Order 9. To establish a 'special circumstance' in the suit a defendant against whom ex-parte decree is passed has to satisfy two conditions, viz., (1) 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 (2) that he has a substantial defence to raise in the suit. The word 'special" is an adjective. According to the Oxford Large Print Dictionary at page 783. It means, of a particular kind, for a particular purpose, not general, a special key special training, exceptional in amount, quality or intensity. The word 'circumstance' is a noun meaning of which is given at page 143 "any of the conditions or facts connected with an event, person or action: he was a victim of circumstances, the conditions affecting him were beyond his control: what are his circumstances ? The word 'circumstance' is a noun meaning of which is given at page 143 "any of the conditions or facts connected with an event, person or action: he was a victim of circumstances, the conditions affecting him were beyond his control: what are his circumstances ? What is to financial position ? they lived in reduced circumstances in poverty that contrasts with their former prosperity. 7. Looked with the angle of 'Special Circumstances' used in Order 37. rule 4 CPC, it would be evident that Rule 4 is applied not only to ex-parte decree for want of proper service of summons but also where defendant had sufficient cause for non-appearance in Court on account of unavoidable circumstances See the decision in Mohanlal's case supra. 8. In the case, in hand, it is not in dispute that the applicant is a labourer belonging to weaker section of the society. He is a poverty stricken person. He could not arrange the amount of Rs. 7000/- to deposit within the time stipulated for defending the suit on substantial defence as the leave was granted conditionally. When he was arranging the finance he met with an accident as a result of which he received the crush injuries in his right hand. He could not work for a period of about one month and remained under treatment. Thereafter, he approached the Court, first by filing objections which were rejected, against the order of rejection, the revision was also dismissed. Then, he filed application under Order 37 rule 4 CPC within the period of three years from the date of passing of the decree. The dismissal of application for furnishing of security by bank guarantee instead of cash was not a bar as by that time ex-parte decree was not passed. Therefore, the trial Court, in the circumstances, was to examine 'special circumstances' which contemplate the gravity of the reason is more high than that of sufficient cause'. The applicant being a poverty stricken person who could not deposit the amount of Rs. 7000/in time, which now has not only been deposited but the total decretal amount has been deposited by the applicant, and that the trial Court has found that the applicant had a substantial defence to defend the suit, in the opinion of this Court, the ex-parte decree so passed against the applicant deserves to be set aside. 7000/in time, which now has not only been deposited but the total decretal amount has been deposited by the applicant, and that the trial Court has found that the applicant had a substantial defence to defend the suit, in the opinion of this Court, the ex-parte decree so passed against the applicant deserves to be set aside. To say so, I take support from a Short Noted decision of this Court, in M.A. No. 173 of 1977 (G) Hariram v. Chaturbhuj Singh, decided on 25.8.1987 (1987 (II) MPWN 154). 9. Accordingly, I direct the parties to appear before the trial Court on 21st September, 1998 of which no notice shall be issued as they have been noticed here through their counsel. The trial Court shall see that the suit is decided expeditiously in accordance with law as far as possible within an outer limit of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. 10. In the result, the revision is allowed. The ex-parte decree passed in Civil Suit No.2-B of 1989 is set aside and the case is sent back for deciding the suit under Order 37 CPC in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, the parties to bear their own costs. C.C. as per rules.