Shaffique, J.

Petitioners challenge Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed in IA Nos.1449/2016 and 1450/2016 by which application filed by the petitioners to set aside the ex parte order had been rejected on the ground that the Power of Attorney has never appeared and obtained leave of court and that there is non compliance of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 22 of the Civil Rules of Practice.

2. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that the petitioners were declared ex parte and a decree had been passed in OP No.292/16 by which direction had been issued for recovery of money from the petitioners.

3. The matter had come to the notice of the petitioners only subsequently and accordingly, they being parties residing at Germany has given a Power of Attorney in favour of Sri. Roshan Nirmal Felix to file application to prosecute OP NO.292/16. When an application was filed seeking leave of Court to appear through Power of Attorney and to set aside ex parte order, the same came to be dismissed by the impugned orders.

4. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that the Power of Attorney holder was entitled to file application for setting aside an ex pa