( 1 ) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order and decree dated 21-2-2002 in I. A. No. 643 of 2000 in O. S. No. 544 of 1999 on the file of the Court of I-Additional Senior civil Judge Vijayawada, dismissing the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of cpc seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree. ( 2 ) MR. V. V. N. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that firstly, the Court below ought to have been allowed the application filed by the appellants seeking to set aside the ex parte decree so as to enable them to file written statement and contest the main suit on merits. Secondly, the Court below ought to have seen that the appellants have no knowledge about the pendency of suit and came to know the same after publication of EP proceedings in the local newspaper. Thirdly, the Court below ought to have seen that if the application filed by the appellants is allowed then no prejudice will be caused to the respondent and the impugned order is against the very spirit of Order 19, Rule 13 of cpc and it is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court. ( 3 ) ON the other hand Mr. V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent filed O. S. No. 544 of 1999 on the file of the Court of First additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, seeking recovery of Rs. 4,89,000/- from the appellants and pass a decree for a sum of rs. 4,89,000/ -. Defendants having been served with suit summons, engaged an advocate and the suit was posted to 12-6-2000 for filing written staternent. Since the appellants failed to file the written statement, time was granted for filing written statement upto 29-6-2000 on payment of costs of Rs. 75/ -. On 29-6-2000, since the Presiding officer of the Court below was on leave the suit was again adjourned to 6-7-2000. Even on that date since the written statement was not filed and costs were not paid, the appellants were called absent and though the matter was passed over till 04. 00 p. m. but there was no representation, the defendants were therefore set ex-parte and posted the suit to 18-7-2000 for plaintiff s evidence. Even on that date since the written statement was not filed and costs were not paid, the appellants were called absent and though the matter was passed over till 04. 00 p. m. but there was no representation, the defendants were therefore set ex-parte and posted the suit to 18-7-2000 for plaintiff s evidence. From 18-7-2000 the suit was posted to 31-7-2000 and again on that day the presiding Officer of the Court below was on leave, the suit was posted to 11-8-2000. After examining the representative of plaintiff- company the suit was decreed. ( 4 ) MR. VSR Anjaneyulu, the learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that actually the appellants were set ex-parte way back on 6-7-2000 but no steps were taken to get the ex-parte order set aside till 11-8-2000. He further submits that while watching the proceedings and after passing ex-parte decree on 11-8-2000 the appellants filed IA No. 643 of 2000 on 16-8-2000 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. The appellants were never ready and the suit was procrastinated on one pretext or the other and the trial Court after considering the material available on record dismissed I. A. No. 643 of 2000 on 21-2-2002 in proper perspective. ( 5 ) HE further submitted in the counter-affidavit that on the basis of ex parte decree, the respondent filed EP No. 173 of 2000 for bringing the property to sale by way of attachment of property and accordingly the executing Court passed order on 5-5-2001. After prolonging the executing proceedings as long as possible, the appellants filed counter-affidavit before the executing Court during the month of August 2003. In the counter-affidavit also the appellants requested the executing Court to grant time for 1 1/2 years to discharge the decretal debt. In view of the facts and circumstances submitted by the respondent-company in its counter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel on either side. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the arguments of mr. In view of the facts and circumstances submitted by the respondent-company in its counter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel on either side. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the arguments of mr. V. V. N. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusing the averments made by the respondent- company in its counter-affidavit, it appears that the trial Court had dismissed the application of the appellants on 21-2-2002 after having waited for quite substantial period of 528 days and when the property is brought to sale, the appellants filed the present appeal by concealing material facts. On the representation made by the appellants in the grounds of appeal and also in CMP no. 26342 of 2003, this Court granted interim stay on conditions of the appellants depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twentyfive thousand only) before the court below to the credit of EP No. 173 of 2003 in O. S. No. 544 of 1999 on the file of the court of I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, vijayawada, within six weeks from the date of passing the order in CMP No. 26342 of 2003 i. e. , 12-11-2003. Though, when the EP is filed for a sum of Rs. 5,37,700/- the appellants had represented that the decretal amount is only Rs. 1,25,000/-, therefore, this Court passed interim stay in CMP No. 26342 of 2003 directing the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- only. From the above, the ingenuity and conduct of the appellants is beyond comprehension but in other words it is nothing butplaying fraud against the Court and obtained interim order. ( 8 ) AT this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants repeatedly submitted that the appellants were not given sufficient opportunity to place the facts of the case before the trial Court in a proper perspective and moreover the respondent has not deducted the amounts paid by the defendants to the credit of O. S. No. 544 of 1999. There fore, as a last chance, the appellants may be given opportunity to submit the true facts of ?he case before the trial Court by imposing any condition. There fore, as a last chance, the appellants may be given opportunity to submit the true facts of ?he case before the trial Court by imposing any condition. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, I am not able to appreciate the conduct of the appellants in misleading the Court and after availing sufficient time granted by the trial court, the appellants cannot say at this stage that the respondent has not deducted the amounts paid by them to the credit of the main suit and further seeking to grant opportunity to place the facts before the trial court. The appellants have not make use of the opportunity given by the trial Court from 12-6-2000 to 6-7-2000 and moreover the appellants should have come forward before this Court along with the written statement so as to please this Court for showing any indulgence to set aside the ex parte decree. Even today also the appellants are not ready with the written statement and seeking time. However, the conduct of the appellants goes to show that they are not very serious about the matter and the appellants are in the habit of procrastinating and dodging the matter by submitting that the impugned order is contrary and within the spirit of Order 9, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. To appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, with regard to the spirit of Order IX Rule 13 of the code it is apt to extract the same, which reads:". . . To appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, with regard to the spirit of Order IX Rule 13 of the code it is apt to extract the same, which reads:". . . Setting aside decree ex-parte against defendants:- In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against the defendant he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, paying into court or otherwise, as it thinks fit and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit; provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant, only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also; provide further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiffs claim. " ( 10 ) A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the defendant has got right to make an application to the Court which passed the decree ex parte against him to set it aside, but he has to satisfy the Court on two counts viz. , that the summons were not duly served on him or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing and if the Court is satisfied with any of the explanations, it is empowered to set aside the exparte decree, after imposing certain terms as to the costs, to be paid either to the Court or otherwise, as it thinks fit and, thereafter shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. An exception is carved out to this general rule which says that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only, it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendant. Yet another exception is provided, which mandates that the Court shall not set aside an ex parte decree merely on the ground that there had been an irregularity in the service of summons and if the Court is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the claim. ( 11 ) AS can be evidenced from the circumstances the case of the appellant falls under the second exception inasmuch as the appellants received summons the suit was posted for filing of Written Statement on 12-6-2000 but it was not filed, even after granting several adjournments and mulcting them with costs. The appellants could not, satisfy the Court on any of the two counts, mandated by Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. Therefore, having failed to satisfy the Court, the appellants are estopped from contending that the trial Court has not given sufficient opportunity to put forth their defence in the suit. That apart, as can be gathered from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, that they have misrepresented the facts before this Court in respect of the suit amount to the tune of only rs. 1,12,500/-, by virtue of which, showing indulgence, conditional order granting stay, on the appellants depositing a sum of rs. 25,000/- before the Court below was passed; whereas the EP was filed for rs. 5,37,700/ -. Had the real facts been brought to the notice of both the Courts, the Courts would not have shown indulgence to set aside the ex parte decree. From the above, it is dear that the appellants have not approached this Court with clean hands, therefore, no indulgence can be shown as contemplated under Order-9 Rule-13 of CPC on that ground also the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ( 12 ) AFTER considering the submission made on either side, I am not able to appreciate the conduct of the appellants and impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and no indulgence can be shown to the appellants. ( 12 ) AFTER considering the submission made on either side, I am not able to appreciate the conduct of the appellants and impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and no indulgence can be shown to the appellants. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the appellants seeking to set aside the ex parte decree and assigned cogent reasons for its conclusion. The appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. ( 13 ) IN the result, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.