R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.

1. Heard. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith. The learned advocates for the respondents waive service. This appeal arises from the order dated 22nd August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion no.1352 of 2007 in Suit No.1102 of 1991. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the notice of motion. The said notice of motion was taken out for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the said Suit No.1102 of 1991 on 12th March, 1997. The said notice of motion was taken out on 8th June, 2007.

2. The sole ground on which the ex parte decree was sought to be set aside by taking out the said notice of motion was that pursuant to the withdrawal of the brief from the earlier advocate, the appellants had engaged another advocate to represent the appellants in the matter, however, on the relevant day the Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellants by the newly engaged advocate had not filed nor had remained present on their behalf. In the circumstances, the suit came to be decreed ex-parte against the appellants. It was further case of the appellants that they came to know about the ex parte decree for the first time on or before 21st June, 2005 when a copy of the decree was sent to them by their advocate.

3. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the appellants had not approached the Court with clean hands and there was suppression of material facts in relation to the knowledge of the disposal of the suit. According to the respondents, it was as long back as in November, 2003 that the appellants were made fully aware of the disposal of the suit as well as ex parte decree and yet the said fact was suppressed by the appellants and had not submitted any explanation for delay in approaching the Court as late as in 2007.

4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, held that there was clear suppression of material fact regarding knowledge of the disposal of the suit by the appellants and that itself disentitles the appellants from getting any relief in the matter. It has been clearly observed by the learned Single Judge that the appellants were fully aware in the year 2003 itself about the fact of disposal of the suit and that is apparent from the letter dated 2nd December, 2003 which was received from their advocate by the appellants and further endorsement made on the said letter by one of the officers of the appellants on 9th December, 2003. Inspite of the said knowledge of disposal of the suit as long back as in December, 2003, the appellants had not furnished any explanation for delay in approaching the Court from December, 2003 till November, 2005 and further till April, 2007. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the decisions which were sought to be relied upon, has held that the suppression of material fact about the knowledge of disposal of the suit, which was acquired as long back as in December, 2003, disentitles any indulgence being shown to the appellants.

5. Upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that undoubtedly on 12th March, 1997 when the suit was decreed ex parte, Vakalatnama executed by the appellants in favour of M/s. Bhaishankar Kanga & Girdharlal was on record and consequently there was

proper representation on behalf of the appellants in the said suit. However, nobody had appeared on the said date either from the office of M/s. Bhaishankar Kanga & Girdharlal or any officer of the appellants and consequently, ex parte decree came to be passed.

6. It is true that it was sought to be strenuously argued on behalf of the appellants that as long back as in September, 1996 itself, the appellants had changed their advocate after obtaining no objection from M/s.Bhaishankar Kanga & Girdharlal and they had engaged M/s.Little & Co.. According to the appellants, a senior advocate from M/s.Little & Co. viz. R.K.Mehta was looking after