JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. By medium of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have laid challenge to the order dated 26.4.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby their application for setting aside ex parte decree, application (OMP No. 202 of 2010) and another application (OMP No. 534 of 2012) for appointment of Local Commissioner have been dismissed. 2. It is contended that the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures and therefore, liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to understand the real controversy between the parties and also failed to scan the evidence on record in its right perspective, therefore, reached at a wrong conclusion. 3. The facts in brief are that the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents came to be decreed against the defendants/appellants for a sum of Rs.25,53,450/- along with interest at the rate of 18.50% per annum. For the purpose of execution the decree was transferred to the High Court of Kolkata, where Receiver came to be appointed. Certain articles belonging to the appellants 2 and 3 were taken into possession in the presence of the representatives of appellants 2 and 3. This was done between October, 2009 and January, 2010. 4. The appellants thereafter filed OMP No. 202 of 2010 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte decree. It was specifically pleaded therein that the appellants “came to learn about the said ex parte decree sometime in the first week of February, 2010. Your petitioner got to know of the said ex parte decree after your petitioner was handed over a copy of the letter dated 21st October, 2009 by your petitioner’s erstwhile Advocate-on-Record, Ms. Kanchan Jaiswal”. It was also pleaded that the appellants were unaware of the proceedings and that the plaintiffs/respondents had deliberately mentioned incorrect address of the appellants as 46D, Fafi Ahmad Kidwai Road, Kolkata-700016, whereas the correct address was 44D, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata-700016 and had thus obtained the ex parte decree by fraud. 5. Respondents opposed this application by filing reply, wherein it was stated that the appellants had deliberately made incorrect and false averments in the application and had thus mislead the Court to obtain order in their favour. 5. Respondents opposed this application by filing reply, wherein it was stated that the appellants had deliberately made incorrect and false averments in the application and had thus mislead the Court to obtain order in their favour. After the petition for execution was transferred to the High Court of Kolkata, in March, 2009 the defendants were served by way of publication and yet did not cause appearance in those proceedings. The Receiver appointed by the Court had in fact on 11.8.2009 visited the premises of the defendants where their representatives were present and therefore, the appellants were fully aware of the proceedings and the decree passed by this Court. 6. The appellants during the integrum preferred an application being OMP No. 236 of 2010, wherein prayer for staying of further proceedings in the execution was made. On 29.10.2010 learned Single Judge in OMP No. 202/2010 framed the following issues:- “1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte decree dated 22.12.2006? OPA 2. Whether the application is within time? OPA 3. Relief.” 7. The appellants took no steps for summoning the witnesses, and instead moved an application for examining on commission the witnesses at Kolkata. However, when the appellants failed to take any effective steps for summoning the witnesses, the learned Single Judge on 16.8.2012 passed the following order:- “Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Advocate has invited my attention to the judgment dated 28th June, 2005 passed by this Court. (copy taken on record). The applicants are directed to personally remain present in the Court for their examination on 27th September, 2012. Also, steps for summoning the official witnesses be taken within one week. Dasti notice be handed over to the learned counsel for the applicants for the service of witnesses.” (Emphasis supplied). Appellants No. 2 and 3 did not cause their personal appearance when the case was listed on 27.9.2012, though two other witnesses were present and their statements were recorded. The reason for the same is contained in the order dated 27.9.2012, which reads thus:- “4. Reason for the applicant for not coming to the Court is quite clear. An FIR against the applicant, i.e. Dr. Pyush Agarwal and his wife defendant No. 3 Dr. (Mrs.) Neelam Agarwal was registered within the State of Himachal Pradesh. The said defendants approached this Court by filing CRMMO No. 44/2005, titled as Dr. Reason for the applicant for not coming to the Court is quite clear. An FIR against the applicant, i.e. Dr. Pyush Agarwal and his wife defendant No. 3 Dr. (Mrs.) Neelam Agarwal was registered within the State of Himachal Pradesh. The said defendants approached this Court by filing CRMMO No. 44/2005, titled as Dr. Pyush Agarwal and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh, which was dismissed in terms of order dated 28.6.2005, which is reproduced as under: “Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that a perusal of the F.I.R. in question does not reveal that the commission of any offence and that at the best it is a civil liability. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent on the other hand submits that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. in question clearly suggests that the commission of offence has clearly been made out. At this stage, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Advocate submits that he has been engaged by the H.P. Financial Corporation and H.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., both Corporations being complainants in the case and the FIR in question having been lodged at their instance. None of these two Corporations is, however, a party respondent in this petition. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that in terms of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, has declared both the petitioners as proclaimed offenders. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the F.I.R. in question, I am of the opinion that indeed the FIR in question does not reveal the commissioning of the offence by the petitioners. There is no warrant for interference by this Court in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Actually while going through the FIR in question, I found that public property and public assets were entrusted to the petitioners in their capacity as the Directors of M/s Napa Papers Limited, Barotiwala and it is with respect to such public property and public assets that these two persons have been accused of committing the offence of criminal breach of trust. The FIR clearly reveals that huge amounts of money were allegedly outstanding against these two petitioners and it is in the course of such transactions that public assets were entrusted to them, detailed list of these assets finding a mention in the FIR in question. The allegation is that these two petitioners removed the public assets with a view to depriving the aforesaid two public corporations of their legitimate rights and dues. The accusation accordingly is that these two persons have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State submits that the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh as well as the Police are facing difficulty in procuring the attendance of the petitioners even after they have been declared as proclaimed offenders. While dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I direct the Superintendent of Police, Solan as well as learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nalagarh to ensure that all possible steps are taken in accordance with law with a view to ensuring that the criminal case in question progresses and further steps are also taken (in accordance with law to ensure that the accused persons/petitioners are made to appear in the Court to stand trial. The petition is dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. Quite apparently, applicant and his wife have been declared as proclaimed offenders by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh and to avoid arrest he/his wife are not coming forward to depose in support of the present application. 6. Two witnesses Shri Ishwar Chandra Jaiswal and Shri Ram Krishan Mandal are present in the Court. Statements of these witnesses recorded. 7. Mr. Bhanot, learned counsel for the applicant, is not clear as to whether applicant Dr. Pyush Aggarwal shall appear in the Court as a witness or not. As such, he wants to seek further instructions.” (Emphasis supplied). 8. Appellants’ right to lead further evidence was closed by an order to this effect on 15.11.2012. However, the appellants filed an application being OMP No. 478 of 2012 for appointment of Local Commissioner for recording the evidence. This application was dismissed on 29.11.2012 on the ground that the evidence to be produced by the appellants had already been closed by the order of Court, the application, therefore, had been rendered infructuous. 9. However, the appellants filed an application being OMP No. 478 of 2012 for appointment of Local Commissioner for recording the evidence. This application was dismissed on 29.11.2012 on the ground that the evidence to be produced by the appellants had already been closed by the order of Court, the application, therefore, had been rendered infructuous. 9. The appellants undeterred filed another application being OMP No. 534 of 2012, wherein in addition to prayer for appointment of Local Commissioner, a prayer for recalling the order dated 15.11.2012 , whereby the evidence of the appellants had been closed, was also made. Vide order dated 8.1.2013, this application came to be dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. It is thereafter that the appellants filed OMP No. 121 of 2013, making prayer for appointment of Local Commissioner for examination of defendants for the third time. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 10. Admittedly, the defendants failed to appear in the witness box and state their case on oath and did not offer themselves to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would, therefore, arise that the case set up by them is not correct (Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573 ). 11. The record reveals that the defendants were served at the following address:- "44B, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Wellesly Mansion, Kolkata-700016. And therefore, their defence that the plaintiffs/respondents had deliberately mentioned incorrect address is palpably false and incorrect. Coming to the oral evidence, it would be seen that Sh. Ishwar Chand Jaiswal (AW-1) in his deposition has in no uncertain terms deposed that he did not know as to how and when the appellants learnt about the ex parte decree. He also admitted that letter Ex. AW-1/A was actually received by Sh. Kanchan Jaiswal, Advocate, who represents the appellants, whereas, letters Ex. RA and RB were in fact written by the said Advocate. Therefore, the testimony of this witness instead of helping the appellants fully supports the case of the plaintiffs/respondents. 12. Further it would be seen that there is not even a whisper, much less, an explanation for the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and therefore, in absence of any explanation, no fault can be found with the judgment as rendered by the learned Single Judge. 12. Further it would be seen that there is not even a whisper, much less, an explanation for the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and therefore, in absence of any explanation, no fault can be found with the judgment as rendered by the learned Single Judge. In addition to that, it has been found as a matter of fact that the Receiver after his appointment had visited the clinic of appellant No. in 2009, therefore, the appellants cannot feign ignorance regarding the decree passed by this Court. 13. Indisputably, appellants No. 2 and 3 had been declared as proclaimed offenders and had been found to be abusing process of law by not only filing the present applications, but earlier to this had been filing multiple applications, which were based on falsehood. Not only this, the appellants had gone to the extent of contending that they could not be compelled to attend the Court in person in order to give evidence and therefore, it was incumbent that a Local Commissioner be appointed to record their statements. We find no reason to interfere with the dismissal of this application and the learned Single Judge has rightly termed the contention of the appellants to be preposterous. 14. Before parting, it may be observed that not only the grounds taken in the memo of appeal are far too general and vague, but even during the course of arguments, the appellants have not been in a position to point out as to how the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge were in any way incorrect or erroneous much less illegal. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs.