The court established that the defendants demonstrated special circumstances justifying the setting aside of a decree due to disputed claims over prior payments, necessitating a fair opportunity to defend.

2. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts, and the circumstances in which this Notice of Motion warrants determination, at this length of time, can be stated as under:-

2.1 M/s. Murphy Electronics Private Limited, defendant No. 1, is a limited company. Video Vision Centre, the defendant No. 2, is a proprietary concern. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are in-charge of and responsible to the affairs of defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

2.2 The defendants approached the plaintiff for financial assistance. During the months of February/August, 1999, the plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs. 25,50,000/- to the defendants against the bills of exchange drawn by defendant No. 1 and accepted by defendant No. 2. Upon presentment, the bills of exchange were dishonoured by defendant No. 2. After payment a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards interest, the defendants had drawn in all 52 cheques for varying amounts payable on varying dates towards discharge of liability. Few of the cheques were honoured. However as many as 30 cheques were returned un-encashed. The plaintiff thus addressed demand notices under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, 1881) and called upon the defendants to pay the amount covered by the cheques. In view of the default on the part of the defendants in complying with the demand therein the plaintiff was constrained to lodge the complaints for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act, 1881.

2.3 Vide legal notice dated 22nd November, 2000 the plaintiff also called upon the defendants to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 15,45,000/- along with interest accrued thereon. In a response, dated 19th December, 2000 the defendants gave vague and evasive reply. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit for recovery of the sum of a Rs. 16,84,430/- along with interest thereon on the strength of the bills of exchange.

2.4 The Writ of Summons was served on the defendants in the month of September, 2001. The defendants entered appearance. Thereupon, the Summons for Judgment was served on the advocate for the defendants on 10th October, 2001. However, the defendants did not file affidavit in reply seeking leave to defend.

2.5 On 24th February, 2003 when the Summons for Judgment was listed before the Court, the learned counsel for the defendants made a statement before the Court that, according to his instruction, the defendants had paid the entire amount to the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contested the said claim and submitted that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- only had been paid. Noting the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the defendants had not sought leave to defend, the Court was persuaded to pass a decree with a direction that the defendants be given credit of Rs. 10,000/- as the plaintiff admitted to have received the said amount during the pendency of the suit.

2.6 The applicants/defendants took out this Notice of Motion contending that they were unaware of the passing of the said decree. In fact, on 14th February, 2002 the entire suit claim was settled by the parties upon payment of a sum of Rs. 6,10,000/- by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has passed a duly stamped receipt, acknowledging the said payment in full and final settlement of the claim. The plaintiff had assured the defendants that the suit would be withdrawn. The defendants had informed their advocate about the said settlement. Ho