JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by defendants No.4 and 2 respectively, seeking setting aside of order dated 28.07.2016 (Annexure P3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar whereby application filed by the defendant No.4/petitioner No.1 herein under Order 9, Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") for setting aside ex parte order dated 03.11.2006, and ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.05.2008 passed in Civil Suit No.656/2006, has been dismissed. Challenge in the present revision petition is also to impugned order dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure P4), whereby the petitioners' appeal against above said order dated 28.07.2016 has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.

2. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners came to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 08.05.2008 when they received summons on 08.10.2013 in execution petition filed by respondents/decree holders. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners filed present application on 06.11.2013. It is submitted that therefore, the said application was wrongly dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.07.2016; and even the appeal filed by the petitioners against the same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order dated 10.05.2018 without correctly, appreciating the facts. Accordingly, the impugned orders be set aside.

3. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioners.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Perusal of record of the case shows that in Civil Suit No.656 of 2006, petitioners were proceeded against ex parte on 03.11.2006. However, thereafter, the petitioners had engaged another counsel to represent them who had appeared on behalf of the petitioners in the trial Court on 07.05.2007. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners before the Courts below that the petitioners did not attend to the proceedings in the Civil Suit as a compromise was effected between the parties. And as per the said compromise, the respondents/plaintiffs had undertaken to withdraw the Suit and as such the petitioners and their counsel did not appear in the suit at hand. It has been further stated that however, the plaintiffs played a fraud with the petitioners and kept on pursuing the case despite the compromise and therefore, succeeded in obtaining ex parte decree dated 08.05.2008.

6. However, the said story put forth by the petitioners on the face of it does not sound plausible as it is hard to believe that the petitioners or their newly engaged counsel will not pursue the litigation to its logical end. Moreover, no such compromise as purported to have been entered into between the parties has been placed on record by the petitioners. Even no details, such as date, time, place, in respect of the alleged compromise have been provided. In fact, except for the bald averment on part of the petitioners, there is nothing whatsoever on record to indicate that a compromise was entered into between the parties.

7. Another glaring anomaly on the record of the case is that the application (Annexure P-2) under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC filed by the petitioner No.1 before the learned trial Court indicates that in para 7 thereof a whole different story has been pleaded by the petitioner. In the said application, ground cited for setting aside, ex-parte order is as follows:-

"7. That the applicant came to know about the ex-party decree on 4.1.2014, when the brother of the applicant told this fact to the applicant."

8. It is, therefore, clear, that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and h