JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned order the learned trial Court has dismissed the petitioner's application filed u/O. 9 Rule 13 CPC. 3. The facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of money was filed against the defendants, including the petitioner. As the petitioner was not being served, the learned trial Court ordered the service to be effected by substituted service, by being published in some local newspaper. Then on 19.7.1991, it was recorded that summon had been published in the newspaper 'Janamdata' on 1.5.1991,, copy whereof has been produced on be record on 9.5.1991 That service was taken to be sufficient. Since the other defendants entered appearance, the summons for judgment, were ordered to be issued to the other defendants. However, ultimately, the suit was decreed on 30.9.1994. 4. The petitioner filed the present application on 21.5.1996 alleging inter alia that the petitioner is working as contractor in Public Works Department and an attachment order was received from the Court u/O. 22 Rule 46, whereupon he was given notice on 14.5.1996. Thereupon, the petitioner learnt about the decree. It was also alleged that summon of the Court was never served on the petitioner, nor did he ever avoid to receive the summons. It was alleged that the petitioner was permanently living in village Jinkali, Tehsil Shiv Distt. Barmer in the year 1991, still the summons were wrongly got published in the newspaper `Janarndata' which is not popular and has a very limited circulation, and on that basis, ex-parte order has been obtained. Other contentions were also raised on merits. 5. Reply to this application was filed, contending that the defendant has always been avoiding to receive summons, on the ground that his father's name is wrongly mentioned, and when summon with correct parentage was sent for the hearing of 31.7.1990, he is avoiding to receive it. and therefore, the permission was required to be obtained u/O. 5 Rule 20. A stand was also taken to the effect that, the suit has already been decreed against the other partners also. despite leave to defend having been granted to them. 6. and therefore, the permission was required to be obtained u/O. 5 Rule 20. A stand was also taken to the effect that, the suit has already been decreed against the other partners also. despite leave to defend having been granted to them. 6. Learned trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the application, inter alia by holding that, it cannot be believed that the petitioner's father's name is Venidan, as the petitioner has not produced satisfactory evidence, like Voter list, Ration card, etc., and it has also been held that the plea is after thought. It was also held that the defendant had the knowledge of the decree, even a month prior to 14.5.1996, and thus, the application is barred by time. Learned trial Court further observed that so far as the question of setting-aside the decree, u/O. 37 Rule 4 is concerned, for that special circumstances are required to be established, which the petitioner has failed to establish, and since the application is filed u/O. 9 Rule 13, and not u/O. 37 Rule 4 there is no sufficient ground to set-aside the decree. 7. At the outset, I may refer to the judgment of this Court in Surya Prakash v. Mohd. Jameel Khan, 1994(2) RLW 474 , reliance whereon has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which clearly holds that in a suit, u/O. 37, the provision of Order 9, Rule 13 is not applicable, and the appropriate remedy is u/O. 37 Rule 4 CPC. It has also been held therein that for an application u/O. 37 Rule 4, the period of limitation is three years u/Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, and not the One provided for filing application u/O. 9 Rule 13 CPC. In that view of the matter, the application filed by the petitioner is required to be treated u/O. 37 Rule 4. 8. Then coming to the question of special circumstances, without going into the other contentions, and factual aspect, suffice it to say that vide order dated 5.4.1991, the service of the petitioner was ordered to be effected by substituted service, and a look at the provisions of Or. 8. Then coming to the question of special circumstances, without going into the other contentions, and factual aspect, suffice it to say that vide order dated 5.4.1991, the service of the petitioner was ordered to be effected by substituted service, and a look at the provisions of Or. 4 Rule CPC shows that according to sub-rule (1-A), where the Court acting under sub-rule (1) 30 orders service by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be a daily newspaper, circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually, and voluntarily resided, carried on business, or personally worked for gain. In the present case, summon has been published in the newspaper 'Janarndata' in its issue dated 1.5.1991, a copy whereof is available on record at page A49/1. A look at that paper shows that it is a fortnightly paper. 9. Thus, taking the things on the face of it, it is clear that summon has not been published in accordance with the requirements u/O. 5 Rule CPC. Then even from the enquiry held by the learned trial Court in the application WO. 9 Rule 13, the learned trial Court has not come to any finding, that even otherwise the defendant was aware of the suit. It is again a different story, that even if that finding would have' been there, that could be only for the purpose u/O. 9 Rule 13 and not u/O. 37 Rule 4 CPC. 10. The obvious result of the aforesaid discussion is that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is, therefore, set-aside. The application of the petitioner filed u/O. 37 Rule 4 stands allowed. The decree, passed against the petitioner only, is accordingly set-aside. The petitioner may enter appearance within ten days from today, in the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court shall thereafter, proceed with the suit, as against the defendant petitioner in accordance with law. Record of the learned trial Court be returned forthwith.Revision Allowed. *******