JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur ('the trial court') in Misc. Case No. 43/2008, whereby, the application filed by the appellant under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent - Mewar Anchalik Gramin Bank ('the Bank') filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 53,092/- under Order 37 before the trial court. In the suit, on issuance of summons under Rule 2ORDER37, the appellant appeared and thereafter under Rule 3 summons for judgment was served on 19.04.2008. However, within ten days from the service of such summons as required by Rule 3(5), the appellant neither appeared nor applied for leave to defend and, therefore, the suit was kept for judgment on 19.05.2008 and the same was decreed on 19.05.2008. 3. On 30.06.2008 the appellant filed application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, inter alia, with the averments that he was not well between 01.05.2008 to 20.05.2008 and, therefore, could not attend the hearing and thereafter he applied for certified copies of the judgment and decree on 21.05.2008, which was received by him on 29.05.2008 and on account of summer vacations in the Civil Courts, he has filed the application on 30.06.2008. 4. The application was opposed by the respondent-Bank by filing reply and the averments contained in the application were denied. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to produce any medical or other evidence relating to his illness, despite the fact that the averments were disputed by the respondent-Bank. Further, once the summons for judgment was served on him on 19.04.2008, he was required to apply for leave to defend within ten days, during which period, he was not unwell and, therefore, he has failed to disclose any reason for his non-appearance and, consequently, rejected the application. 6. Further, once the summons for judgment was served on him on 19.04.2008, he was required to apply for leave to defend within ten days, during which period, he was not unwell and, therefore, he has failed to disclose any reason for his non-appearance and, consequently, rejected the application. 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has taken a very pedantic view of the matter and has rejected the application despite the fact that it was specifically averred by the appellant that he was not well and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be provided an opportunity to contest the suit filed by the Bank on merits. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 54 . 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank supported the order impugned. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. 9. It would be seen that apparently the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was not maintainable. Admittedly, the suit was filed under the provisions of Order 37, which provides for summary procedure and under the said Order, Rule 4 specifically deals with power to set aside decree, which reads thus:- "4. Power to 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." 10. It would be appropriate to notice provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 CPC also, in so far as the same is relevant, which reads thus:- "13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendants. It would be appropriate to notice provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 CPC also, in so far as the same is relevant, which reads thus:- "13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendants. - In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit." 11. A bare reading of both the provisions would reveal that while Order 9, Rule 13 CPC requires a sufficient cause, the provisions of Order 37, Rule 4 requires special circumstances for setting aside the decree and Order 37 being a complete code in itself dealing with the summary procedure, the resort to provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 CPC in a suit which was filed under summary procedure was wholly misplaced and the application, therefore, was not maintainable. 12. This Court in Mohan Lal v. Om Prakash, AIR 1989 Rajasthan 131 held as under:- "9. Under R.13 of O.9 the Court has power to set aside the ex parte decree if the defendant succeeds in satisfying the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing in the Court. Under R.4 of O.37 it is necessary for the defendant to show that "special circumstances" exist to set aside the decree. Mere "sufficient ground" cannot be equated with "special reason" sufficient cause and "special circumstances" appearing in R.13 of O.9 and R.4, O.37 respectively are not synonymous. Legislature in its wisdom has used the words "special circumstances" in R.4 of O.37. The gravity of the reasons is more high in case of "special circumstances" as provided under Rule 4 of O.37. It will not be out of place here to mention that the words "sufficient cause" and "special reasons" carry different meanings. The word "cause" cannot be equated with 'reasons' and similarly the word "sufficient" cannot be equated with "special". The gravity of the reasons is more high in case of "special circumstances" as provided under Rule 4 of O.37. It will not be out of place here to mention that the words "sufficient cause" and "special reasons" carry different meanings. The word "cause" cannot be equated with 'reasons' and similarly the word "sufficient" cannot be equated with "special". Special circumstances ordinarily mean that the defendant was prevented to appear in the Court on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond his control. In such circumstances, I hold that the meaning assigned to the words "sufficient cause" under R.13 of O.9 cannot be given to the words used in R.4 of O.37 to the words "special reasons"." 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajni Kumar v. Suresh Kumar Malhotra & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 1322 categorically held that under Order 37, Rule 4 defendant has to show not only special circumstances, which prevented him from appearing or applying for leave to defend but also the facts which would entitle him leave to defend and, failure of defendant to disclose facts, which would entitle him to defend the case would lead to rejection of the application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "9. In considering an application to set aside ex parte decree, it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction between suits instituted in the ordinary manner and suits filed under Order 37, CPC Rule 7ORDER37 says that except as provided thereunder the procedure in suits under Order 37 shall be the same as the procedure in suits instituted in the ordinary manner. Rule 4ORDER37 specifically provides for setting aside decree, therefore, provisions of Rule 13 of Rule 9 will not apply to a suit filed under Order 37. In a suit filed in the ordinary manner a defendant has the right to contest the suit as a matter of course. Nonetheless, he may be declared ex parte if he does not appear in response to summons, or after entering appearance before framing issues; or during or after trial. Though addressing arguments is part of trial, one can loosely say that a defendant who remains absent at the stage of argument, is declared ex parte after the trial. Nonetheless, he may be declared ex parte if he does not appear in response to summons, or after entering appearance before framing issues; or during or after trial. Though addressing arguments is part of trial, one can loosely say that a defendant who remains absent at the stage of argument, is declared ex parte after the trial. In an application under Order 9, Rule 11, if a defendant is set ex parte and that order is set aside, he would be entitled to participate in the proceedings from the stage he was set ex parte. But an application under Order 9, Rule 13 could be filed on any of the grounds mentioned thereunder only after a decree is passed ex parte against defendant. If the Court is satisfied that (1) summons was not duly served, or (2) he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing, it has to make an order setting aside the decree against him on such terms as to cost or payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit and thereafter on the day fixed for hearing by Court, the suit would proceed as if no ex parte decree had been passed. But in a suit under Order 37 the procedure for appearance of defendant is governed by provisions of Rule 3 thereof. A defendant is not entitled to defend the suit unless he enters appearance within ten days of service of summons either in person or by a pleader and files in Court an address for service of notices on him. In default of his entering an appearance, the plaintiff becomes entitled to a decree for any sum not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree together with costs. The plaintiff will also be entitled to judgment in terms of sub-rule (6) of Rule 3. If the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff is required to serve on the defendant a summons for judgment in the prescribed form. The plaintiff will also be entitled to judgment in terms of sub-rule (6) of Rule 3. If the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff is required to serve on the defendant a summons for judgment in the prescribed form. Within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, the defendant may seek leave of the Court to defend the suit, which will be granted on disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend and such leave may be granted to him either unconditionally or on such terms as the Court may deem fit. Normally the Court will not refuse leave unless the Court is satisfied that facts disclosed by the defendant do not indicate substantial defence or that defence intended to be put up is frivolous or vexatious. Where a part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, no leave to defend the suit can be granted unless the admitted amount is deposited by him in Court. Inasmuch as Order 37 does not speak of the procedure when leave to defend the suit is granted, the procedure applicable to suits instituted in the ordinary manner, will apply. 10. It is important to note here that the power under Rule 4ORDER37 is not confined to setting aside the ex parte decree, it extends to staying or setting aside the execution and giving leave to appear to the summons and to defend the suit. We may point out that as the very purpose of Order 37 is to ensure an expeditious hearing and disposal of the suit filed thereunder, Rule 4 empowers the Court to grant leave to the defendant to appear to summons and defend the suit if the Court considers it reasonable so to do, on such terms as Court thinks fit in addition to setting aside the decree. Where on an application, more than one among the specified reliefs may be granted by the Court all such reliefs must be claimed in one application. It is not permissible to claim such reliefs in successive petitions as it would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the provision. Where on an application, more than one among the specified reliefs may be granted by the Court all such reliefs must be claimed in one application. It is not permissible to claim such reliefs in successive petitions as it would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the provision. That is why where an application under Rule 4ORDER37 is filed to set aside a decree either because the defendant did not appear in response to summons and limitation expired, or having appeared, did not apply for leave to defend this suit in the prescribed period, the Court is empowered to grant leave to defendant to appear to the summons and to defend the suit in the same application. It is, therefore, not enough for the defendant to show special circumstances which prevented him from appearing or applying for leave to defend, he has also to show by affidavit or otherwise, facts which would entitle him leave to defend the suit. In this respect, Rule 4ORDER37 is different from Rule 13ORDER9. 11. Now adverting to the facts of this case, though appellant has shown sufficient cause for his absence on the date of passing ex parte decree, he failed to disclose facts which would entitle him to defend the case. The respondent was right in his submission that in the application under Rule 4ORDER37, the appellant did not say a word about any amount being in deposit with the respondent or that the suit was not maintainable under Order 37. From a perusal of the order under challenge, it appears to us that the High Court was right in accepting existence of special circumstances justifying his not seeking leave of the Court to defend, but in declining to grant relief since he had mentioned no circumstances justifying any defence." 14. Coming back to the case in hand, the appellant has not indicated a word regarding the facts entitling him to defend the case, merely few lines have been indicated giving out reasons for his non-appearance and, consequently, in view of the requirements as envisaged by Order 37, Rule 4 CPC as indicated by Hon'ble Supreme Court also the application was not maintainable. 15. Even on merits, the plea of illness raised by the appellant was not supported by any material despite the fact that the same was disputed by the respondent-Bank by way of reply supported by affidavit. 16. 15. Even on merits, the plea of illness raised by the appellant was not supported by any material despite the fact that the same was disputed by the respondent-Bank by way of reply supported by affidavit. 16. So far as the judgment relied on by the appellant is concerned, the same being under provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 CPC has no application and, even otherwise, the facts of that case are much different from the present case. 17. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******