By the Court.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Azamgarh in Original Suit No. 61 of 2000 by which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was decreed ex parte.

2. The brief facts which give rise to this appeal are that the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) filed O.S. No. 61 of 2000 against the defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) and State of U.P., who was the proforma defendant for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and a decree of damages.

3. The averments made in the plaint is that for establishing Dugdh Utpadan Udhyog, an amount of Rs. 8,90,000/- (Rs.7,40,000/- for building and machinery and Rs. 1,50,000/- for working capital) was sanctioned by the appellants. However, the appellants disbursed only Rs. 7,40,000/- towards building & machinery and instead of providing Rs. 1,50,000/- as working capital, they proposed to give only Rs. 50,000/- for working capital, which was not sufficient to start production

4. The plaintiffs-respondents submitted that an additional project for manufacturing of Ghee from Cream, was sanctioned and sought an additional loan of Rs. 15 lac as working capital on 27.3.1998 and appellant No. 1 has sanctioned a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as working capital. However, the same was not disbursed and the plaintiffs alleged that on account of non-disbursement of working capital, they could not start the production, and as a result of which, the plaintiffs suffered a loss of Rs. 10,000/- per day. When the defendants-appellants on one hand did not disburse the amount of loan for working capital and on the other hand they started recovery of amount of loan, which was given to the plaintiffs-respondents earlier. The plaintiffs were compelled to file thhis suit for the relief that the plaintiffs be awarded damages at the rate of 10,000/- per day till the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- as working capital by the defendants and further sought injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount of Rs. 7,90,000/- paid to them by means of recovery certificate or coercive measure and also from realizing interest thereon.

5. By the order dated 10.5.2001, the suit was ordered to proceed ex parte. An application was filed to recall the said order and sought to file written statements. However, the application to recall the order was rejected against which a revision was filed by the appellants, which is pending.

6. On 21.1.2006, an application was moved by the appellants to admit written statement 83-A and the same was rejected. A civil revision was filed against the said order, which is also pending before this Court.

7. An application was filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 3 & 11 C.P.C. for verification of the plaint as the relief was barred by law and the same remained pending and was not decided even till the passing of ex parte decree.

8. An application 85C1 was also moved seeking permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiffs. The same was also rejected and the order was challenged byway of writ petition, which was also dismissed.

9. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide order dated 17.12.2001 decreed the suit ex parte.

10. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants-appellants moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside the ex parte decree and the same was registered as Misc. Application No. 15 of 2012.

11. vide order dated 2.2.2013, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13 against which, first appeal from order was also filed, which was registered as F.A.F.O. No. 747 of 2013, which has been dismissed vide order date 19.9.2013.

12. The defendants-respondents filed the present appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. before this Court. The appeal was barred by time and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved. The Court allowed the application filed un