' An ex parte decree for recovery of money under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Was passed by learned District Judge, Khanewal on 14-6-1988 in favour of respondent and against the petitioners. On 27- 6-1988 the petitioners filed an application for setting aside the aforesaid decree on the ground that their service on the summons was not effected and newspaper is not available in the village where they reside.
2. Alongwith the aforesaid application they had also filed another application for seeking leave to appear and defend the suit without disclosing any ground on the basis of which the suit was to be defended.
3. The applications were opposed by the respondent (decree-holder). After framing necessary issues and recording evidence, application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by learned District Judge, Khanewal on 22-11-1989.
4. The aforesaid order of learned District Judge is assailed in this civil revision by the petitioner (judgment-debtors) on the grounds that the learned trial Court had failed to appreciate that the petitioners were not served personally, affixation of the summons was made by the process-server without order of the Court; that substituted service through proclamation in the newspaper was ordered without satisfying that petitioners were intentionally avoiding service; and that postal certificate showing that newspaper containing notice of proclamation was sent to the petitioners was not produced.
5. It was also urged that evidence was misread and overlooked and that it was necessary that the petitioners should have been given liberal opportunity to prove their defence.
6. Revision petition was strongly opposed by the respondent's counsel.
7. Arguments heard. Civil revision and its annexures perused.
8. The ex parte decree for recovery of money was passed on the basis of a pronote and receipt purporting to be executed by the petitioners. Even if it is accepted that the petitioners were not served, no defense was disclosed by them in the application which required investigation in the suit after setting aside the ex parte decree under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Application for seeking leave to appear and defend, annexed with the application for setting aside ex parte decree also did not disclose any defence, what to speak of plausible defense.
9. Under rule 4 of Order XXXVII, C.P.C., ex parte decree may be set aside under special circumstances and leave to defend the suit may be granted to the defendant where he is able to show special circumstances warranting setting aside of ex parte decree. The term "special circumstances" is stricter than the terms "good cause" or "sufficient cause" and include merits of the case.
10. There was, therefore, no sense in setting aside ex parte decree with the object of granting leave to the petitioners (defendants) to appear and defend the suit when they had utterly failed to disclose any defense whatsoever either in their application for setting aside the ex parte decree or in their application for seeking permission to appear and defend the suit.
' Revision petition dismissed.