HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU CRP No. 463 of 2009 O R D E R: This revision petition is filed against the order dated 11.12.2008 in IA.No.404 of 2007 in OS.No.1582 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy, L.B.Nagar. OS.No.1582 of 2002 was filed under Order XXXVII of C.P.C., which deals with summary suits. In that suit filed under Order XXXVII of C.P.C., the present petitioner was the defendant. He was set ex parte by the Court. Thereafter, he filed IA.No.923 of 2004 to condone the delay of 372 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application to condone the delay was dismissed. Against the same, he preferred CRP.No.1509 of 2005, which was allowed with certain conditions. The conditions were complied with and as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the lower Court took up IA.No.404 of 2007 for hearing, which was filed to set aside the ex pate order. The lower Court heard the matter and vide its order dated 11.12.2008, dismissed the application filed to set aside the ex parte order. It is this order of dismissal that is now assailed in the appeal. This Court has heard Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel for the appellant and none appeared for the respondents. 2 Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the lower Court took a hyper technical view of the matter and dismissed the application without considering the true import of the affidavit that is filed in this case. He argued that the contents of the affidavit filed in IA.No.404 of 2007 make it clear that there was more than a sufficient cause to set aside the decree. He also pointed out that the deponent in the affidavit made out a case of payment of amount in para 4 and that there is substantial defence, which was raised in the matter. He also argued that the Court below has over looked the triable issue that is raised by the deponent There is no representation for the respondent and so the Court proceeded to hear the matter. This Court notices that provisions of Order XXXVII of CPC provide certain exceptions to the general Rule of trial of suits. Order XXXVII of CPC prescribes that it shall be applicable only to certain types of cases and prescribes a special procedure for dealing with the said cases. It is for this reason alone, Order XXXVII Rule 4 of CPC states that only the Court may under special circumstances set aside the decree. The difference between Order IX Rule 7 of CPC and Order IX Rule 13 of CPC and Order XXXVII, Rule 4 is clear. In Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, it is enough if the defendant shows “good cause” for his non appearance. Under order IX Rule 13 of CPC, he has to show sufficient cause “but under Order XXXVII, it is necessary that “special circumstances” must 3 exist to enable the Court to set aside the decree and if necessary, it “may” stay the decree and grant leave to the defendant to contest the case. Therefore, it is clear that the special circumstances must be pleaded and should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The existence of a strong defence or a triable case is also necessary to grant leave to defend the summary case filed. This Court notices that the judgments cited and considered by the lower Court are the correct law. Mere existence of a sufficient cause is not enough. The very purpose of hearing the suit in a quick and similar manner will be defeated if an application is allowed to be filed without making out certain special circumstances. Special circumstances would mean something over and above the normal and that is the reason why language in Order IX of CPC is different from language used in Order XXXVII of CPC. This Court also notices that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Rajni Kumar V. Suresh Kumar Malhotra and Another1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clearly noticed that it is not enough to merely make out a sufficient cause, but the facts that are enough to make the deponent defend the case are not clearly spelt out. The Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that special circumstances cannot be defined and that special circumstances are something exceptional in character, 1 AIR 2003 SC 1322 4 uncommon or significant. They are the antonym of the ordinary or the general. Thus the special circumstances needed to be pleaded and proved are not the ordinary or the routine, but something more which the Court will have to see on a case to case basis. Even in this case also, the present appellant failed to plead with certainty the special circumstances or that he had a triable case or a substantial defence to be raised in the summary suit. He did not also plead any circumstances, which would go to show that the suit was not maintainable more so under Order XXXVII of CPC., only a bald averment is made that he has met the President of the Crushers Material Association, who he hoped would settle the career. There is no other ground made out. The petitioner and the respondent are businessman. It is not known why he has met the President of Crushers Material Association instead of taking steps as mandated by law in a Court of law to defend the case. The said Association does not have any jurisdiction to settle the monetary claims. If the applicant has a defense, he should have moved the Court immediately instead of meeting the Association. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the clear language used under Order XXXVII, Rule 4 of CPC., there is no pleading about the special circumstances warranting interference in the present case. The petitioner has failed to prove the existence of the two pre-conditions 5 necessary to set aside the order (a) special circumstances to set aside the decree and (b) leave to defend on the ground that he has a triable case or a substantial defence. In the absence of these two pre-conditions, the lower Court was right in refusing to set aside the ex parte decree. If the ex parte decree is set aside under Order XXXVII of CPC in a routine and normal manner, the very purpose of filing a summary suit would be defeated. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order of the lower Court is correct and there are no errors or deficiencies for the same warranting interference by this Court. This Court also notices the judgment in Bhagwan Swaroop and Others. v. Mool Chand and Others2, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows with regard to procedural laws: “It is no doubt true that a Code of Procedure 'is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends and it is not a penal enactment for punishment and penalty and not a thing designed to trip people up'. Procedural laws are no doubt devised and enacted for the purposes of advancing justice. Procedural laws, however, are also laws and are enacted to be obeyed and implemented. The laws of procedure by themselves do not create any impediment or obstruction in the matter of doing justice to the parties. On the other hand, the main purpose and object of enacting procedural laws is to see that justice is done to the parties. In the absence of procedural laws regulating procedure as to dealing with any dispute between the parties, the cause of 2 AIR 1983 SC 355 6 justice suffers and justice will be in a state of 'confusion and quandary. Difficulties arise when parties are at default in complying with the laws of procedure. As procedure is aptly described to be the hand-maid of justice, the Court may in appropriate cases ignore or excuse a mere irregularity in the observance of the procedural law in the larger interest of justice. It is, however, always to be borne in mind that procedural laws' are as valid as any other law and are enacted to be observed and have not been enacted merely to be brushed aside by the Court Justice means justice to the parties in any particular case and justice according to law. If procedural laws are properly observed, as they should be observed, no problem arises for the Court for considering whether any lapse in the observance of the procedural law needs to be excused or overlooked. As I have already observed depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case in the larger interests of administration of justice the Court may and the Court in fact does, excuse or overlook a mere irregularity or a trivial breach in the observance of any procedural law for doing real and substantial justice to the parties and the Court passes proper orders which will serve the interests of justice best. For all these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is correct and there are no reasons for interference with the same. In the result, the civil revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed. ________________________ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 16.04.2018 KLP