Setting aside an Order 37 decree requires special circumstances and a substantial defence.

The respondents brought a summary suit under Order 37 CPC to recover ₹16,94,000 with interest.

After fresh summons were issued, the process server reported that petitioner No. 1, the sole proprietor, refused to accept them and that a copy was affixed at the factory pursuant to the trial court’s direction.

The petitioners did not enter appearance, and the suit was decreed ex parte on 6 January 2016.

Their application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC alleged improper service and asserted defences concerning alleged cheque tampering and the plaintiff firm’s registration. The trial court dismissed the application, finding valid service, no special circumstances, and delay; the petitioners challenged that dismissal in revision.

Whether the petitioners established special circumstances under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, including that they were not duly served or were otherwise prevented from entering appearance and seeking leave to defend.

Whether the petitioners disclosed a good, substantial, or meritorious defence sufficient to warrant leave to defend.

Order 37 Rules 3 and 4 CPC govern appearance and relief from a decree in a summary suit. A defendant must enter appearance within ten days of service; Rule 4 permits a decree to be set aside only under “special circumstances,” a standard distinct from the sufficient-ground test under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

Under Rajni Kumar v. Suresh Kumar Malhotra, AIR 2003 SC 1322, a defendant seeking relief under Rule 4 must establish both special circumstances explaining the failure to appear or seek leave to defend and facts entitling the defendant to defend the suit.

The court also relied on Tirlok Singh Thakur v. Madan Singh Nirala, AIR 2000 HP 95, concerning the twin requirements of sufficient cause and a substantial or meritorious defence.

The court found that the earlier summons refused by the petitioner’s father were not the basis for proceeding ex parte: fresh summons had been ordered, and on 23 December 2015 the process server met the proprietor, who refused service. Affixation was made under the trial court’s direction, and the petitioners therefore had been served but failed to enter appearance within the prescribed period.

The court further held that their pleaded defences did not satisfy the merits requirement: the cheque recorded “ELEVEN LAC ONLY,” and the record supported the plaintiff firm’s registration.

The petitioners’ service-based account was also inconsistent with the later service report, and the court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s conclusions.

It dismissed the civil revision and made no order as to costs; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.