To set aside a summary suit ex-parte decree, the defendant must prove both special circumstances and a triable defense.

The petitioner (1st defendant) was sued by respondents 1 and 2 in a summary suit (O.S.No.4110 of 2024) for recovery of arrears of rent under Order XXXVII of the CPC.

Although summons were served, the petitioner failed to appear on the hearing date (14.08.2024), leading to an ex-parte decree.

The petitioner filed an application (I.A.No.1 of 2025) to set aside the decree, claiming he had entrusted the matter to a junior advocate who had to leave Chennai due to a medical emergency.

The trial court dismissed the application, and the petitioner approached the High Court in revision.

Whether the petitioner established "special circumstances" under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the CPC to justify setting aside the ex-parte decree.

Whether the petitioner disclosed facts that would entitle him to leave to defend the suit.

The court applied Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the CPC, which empowers a court to set aside a decree in a summary suit only under "special circumstances".

It distinguished this from Order IX Rule 13, noting that the former is a more "stringent" requirement than merely showing "sufficient cause".

The court relied on *Rajni Kumar v. Suresh Kumar Malhotra* (2003) 5 SCC 315, which established that a defendant must not only explain their absence but also disclose facts entitling them to leave to defend.

It distinguished the precedent *UCAL Fuel Systems v. Kintetsu World Express India Pvt. Ltd.* (2023) 1 LW 341 regarding advocate negligence.

The court reasoned that since the suit was filed under the summary procedure of Order XXXVII, the petitioner could not be granted relief unless he met the high threshold of "special circumstances".

Regarding the procedural absence, the court found the petitioner's claim weak because the junior advocate failed to file an affidavit affirming the medical emergency.

Crucially, the court applied the two-prong test from *Rajni Kumar*: (1) cause for absence and (2) merit of the defense.

The court observed that the petitioner’s affidavit contained only a "bald unsupported claim" of non-liability without demonstrating a substantial triable defense.

Arguments regarding previous writ proceedings and the locking of premises were rejected as they were not part of the original affidavit filed before the trial court.

The court found no perversity in the trial court's order and affirmed that setting aside a summary decree requires both a valid reason for non-appearance and a prima facie triable defense.

All connected petitions were closed.