( 1 ) BY these applications defendants 1, 2 and 3 have prayed that their earlier application registered as I. A. 3895 of 86 under Order IX Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside ex parte decree dated 30th April, 1986, which was dismissed on 24th July 1986, be restored and the delay in applying for it be condoned.

( 2 ). In the suit a decree was sought against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,35,000 with interest and costs.

( 3 ). Defendant No. I is a partnership firm. Defendants 2 and 3 axe brothers. They and defendant No. 4 are partners of the firm. The defendants were duly served with summons in the suit. Mr. B. L. Gupta Advocate, appeared on behalf of all the defendants on 10th January 1986. He sought adjournment to file written statement and reply to application of the Plaintiff for interim orders. On the next date of hearing on 12th February 1986, Mr. Gupta stated that he was appearing only for defendants 2 and 3. Since the other two defendants had earlier been served, they were proceeded ex parte. Further adjournment was granted to Mr. Gupta to file written statement on behalf of defendants 2 and 3. Neither written statement was filed nor any one appeared for these defendants on 26th February 1986 and on 4th March 1986. Therefore, order was made to proceed ex parte against defendants No. 2 and 3 also. Ex-parte evidence was recorded on 26th April 1986. Ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 30th April 1986 for Rs. 1,35,000 with costs and also interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs. 89,305 from the date of the institution of the suit till payment.

( 4 ). On behalf of defendants 1, 2 and 3 an application under Order IX Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code was filed on 8th July 1986. This application was registered as I. A. 3895 of 1986. It was listed before Court on 10th July 1986. None appeared for the applicants. It was directed to be listed again on 24th July 1986. That day also, no one appeared for the applicants. Consequently, it was dismissed in default on 24th July 1986.

( 5 ). Thereafter, the decree-holder took steps to execute the decree. Properties mentioned in the execution petition registered as Ex. No. 149 of 1986 were ordered to be attached.

( 6 ). The present applications were filed on 10th November 1986 along with yet another application, I. A. 6269 of 1986, by which stay of executio of decree was sought pending decision of these two applications.

( 7 ). The applicants admit that they engaged Mr. B. L. Gupta, Advocate; to represent them in the suit. It is also admitted that after hearing on 12th Feb. , 1986 Mr. Gupta informed the applicants about the next date of hearing on 26th May 1986. It is alleged that they briefed Mr. Gupta for preparing the written statement, but, on or about 26th/27th May 1986, when the Applicants again contacted their Advocate, they came to know of ex parte judgment and decree passed against them on 30th April 1986. It is admitted that IA 3895 of 1986 was filed by the applicants through Mr. B. L. Gupta, Advocate for setting aside the ex-pane judgment and decree. Thereafter, it is alleged that, as and when the applicants contacted Mr. Gupta, they were told that I. A. 3895 of 1986 was being prosecuted with due diligence.

( 8 ). It is alleged that suddenly, on 28th October 1986 the applicants. were informed by lady members of their family that warrants of attachment have been issued in the case. On this information, it is alleged, they rushed to the office of Mr. B. L. Gupta, Advocate. They were unable to get in touch with him. So, they asked Mr. Sikandar Ali, Advocate in his office to enquire into the matter. After preliminary inspection of the case file, he informed the. applicants that I. A. 3895 of 1986 was dismissed in default on 24th July 1986. Mr. Gupta was not available to the applicants even in the evening on 28th October 1986. So, they contacted Mr. A. K. . Singla, Advocate. He required the case file to advise the applican