Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. Challenge in the present appeals is to the order dated 11.09.2014 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the applications preferred by the appellants under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Since the appeals are filed against the common order, therefore the same are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

2. Mr. J.K. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset seeks modification of the order dated 24.02.2015, limited to the extent that in the said order the Court has not recorded the fact that the statement given by the learned counsel stating that he will confine his arguments to assail the order under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC was on instructions from Mohd. Waris, the authorised representative.

3. The modification sought for is innocuous in nature, therefore, the same is allowed and the order dated 24.02.2015 is modified, limited to the extent of incorporating the fact, that the submission made by Mr. J.K. Singh, Advocate, was on the instructions received by him from Mohd. Waris – authorised representative of the appellant Company.

4. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present appeals inter alia are that two separate suits for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of copyrights, damages, rendition of accounts, etc., were preferred by the respondents. Summons of the suit and notice of the injunction applications in both the suits were served on the appellant on 25.07.2012 and the next date fixed in both the suits was 30.7.2012. An advocate by the name of Mr.Umesh Mishra had appeared on behalf of the appellants before the Court in both the suits on 30th July 2012 and both the matters were adjourned at his request, for 21.11.2012. On 21.11.2012, nobody had appeared in both the said matters on behalf of the appellants, nor had the appellants filed their written statements within the prescribed period of limitation. The learned Single Judge accordingly closed the right of the appellants to file their written statement and on the same date, proceeded ex parte against the appellants as nobody had appeared on their behalf on that date. Learned Single Judge in the order dated 21.11.2012 recorded the fact that on 30th July 2012, one Mr.Umesh Mishra had appeared on behalf of the appellants/defendants and the appellants were duly served in both the suits on 30th July 2012. Noticably, Mr.Umesh Mishra who had appeared in the suits on 30th July 2012 did not file his Power of Attorney or any memo of appearance, therefore the appearance of Mr.Umesh Mishra, Advocate on 30th July 2012 was without any authority. Ex-parte evidence in both the suits was recorded on 20.2.2013 and 9.4.2013 and ex parte judgment was passed by the court on 26.7.2013. In the application filed by the appellants under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, in both the suits, the common stand taken was that on 30th July 2012, proxy counsel Mr.Umesh Mishra had appeared before the court on behalf of Mr. Mrinal Kumar, Advocate but on the subsequent dates, Mohd. Waris, Advocate could not appear and nor could he file written statement as the counsel – Mr. Mrinal Kumar had to go to his home town because his brother was suffering from cancer.

5. It was also the case of the appellants that they were not aware of the proceedings which had taken place in the Court and it was only on 9.7.2013 when a demand notice dated 6.7.2013 was received from the respondents in the matter C.S. (OS) No. 2185/2012 whereafter, necessary inquiries were made by the appellants about the said matters from their advocate. It was further averred that the Advocate did not respond to the calls of the appellants and when the appellants searched the website of the Delhi High Court there from it transpired to the appellants, that they were preceded ex parte on 21.11.2012 and the ex parte judgment was passed against them on 26.07.2013. In support of the application, the appellants also filed supporting affidavit of Mr.