JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Heard Sri Manjiv Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.M.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the validity of the order dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lucknow whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 13, CPC for setting-aside the alleged ex-parte decree dated 22.10.1980 has been rejected. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of the appellate order dated 07.03.2015 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Court No.4, Lucknow/Additional District Judge whereby the appeal preferred by them against the order passed by the trial court has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case, as could be gathered from the material available on record, are that the respondent no.3 is said to have executed a sale deed which was registered on 26.10.1978 in favour of late Ram Dutt who is the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in respect of khasra plot no. 2094 having an area of two bighas ten biswan, plot no.2095 having an area of one biswa ten biswansi, plot no.2096 having an area of nine biswa six biswansi and plot no.1385 having an area of four biswa ten biswansi (as detailed in para 5 of the petition), situate in village Peeparsand, Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil and District Lucknow. 3. A suit for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed dated 26.10.1978 allegedly executed by respondent no.3 in favour of late Ram Dutt was filed by respondent no.3 which was registered as Regular Suit No.93 of 1979. The said suit was decreed as ex-parte on 22.10.1980. An application appears to have been moved under Order IX Rule 13, CPC by late Ram Dutt and the petitioners no. 1 and 2, which was dismissed for non prosecution by the learned trial court on 17.08.1985. An application thereafter was moved by the petitioners no.1 and 2 along with late Ram Dutt seeking restoration of the application moved earlier under Order IX Rule 13, CPC, which was allowed by the learned trial court by means of order dated 30.10.1997 and the application moved under Order IX Rule 13, CPC was restored. However, the said application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC was again dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.01.2001. However, the said application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC was again dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.01.2001. No application for setting-aside the order dated 19.01.2001 whereby the application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC was dismissed in default was moved before the year 2013 either by late Ram Dutt or his successors. In the meantime, Ram Dutt, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners died on 30.05.2012 and thereafter in the year 2013, an application was moved by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 13, CPC again. The said application has been rejected by the learned trial court by means of order dated 24.04.2014 and the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the said order passed by the learned trial court has also been dismissed by the learned appellate court below by means of the order dated 07.03.2015. It is these two orders dated 24.04.2014 and 07.03.2015 that are under challenge before this Court in these proceedings instituted by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in fact, the petitioners did not have any knowledge of the Regular Suit No. 93 of 1979 having been decreed ex-parte on 22.10.1980. It has also been argued by learned counsel for petitioners that in fact, the petitioners came to know about the ex-parte decree only on 15.04.2013 when they instituted a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the same property against one Sri Bansh Bahadur Singh in whose favour respondent no.3 is said to have executed another sale deed on 23.03.2012. He has further submitted that when on 15.04.2013 in Regular Suit No.855 of 2012 the written statement on behalf of the defendants therein was filed that factum of ex-parte decree dated 22.10.1980 came to the notice of the petitioners and immediately thereafter they moved an application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC for setting-aside the ex-parte decree dated 22.10.1980. 5. He has further submitted that when on 15.04.2013 in Regular Suit No.855 of 2012 the written statement on behalf of the defendants therein was filed that factum of ex-parte decree dated 22.10.1980 came to the notice of the petitioners and immediately thereafter they moved an application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC for setting-aside the ex-parte decree dated 22.10.1980. 5. Learned trial court, while considering the case of respective parties, has given categorical finding that the petitioners had the information and knowledge of ex-parte decree dated 22.10.1980 in the year 1981 itself as the petitioners no.1 and 2 had joined late Ram Dutt in moving the application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC on 06.04.1981 for setting-aside the ex-parte decree dated 22.10.1980 and thus, in this view of the matter, it cannot be concluded that the petitioners did not have the knowledge of the ex-parte decree since the year 1980 till 2013. 6. On the aforesaid findings the application moved by the petitioners has been rejected. The appellate court has also not interfered in the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial court and has concurred with the findings that the petitioners cannot be said to have no knowledge of the ex-parte decree for all these 33 years and has, thus dismissed the appeal. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in fact, pairvi of the case was being earlier done by late Ram Dutt and under what circumstances, the petitioners no.1 and 2 were joined in the application moved on 06.04.1981 under Order IX Rule 13, CPC along with late Ram Dutt is not known to them. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners no.1 and 2 never filed the said application. 8. The findings recorded on the aforesaid issue by the learned trial court, in my considered opinion, is not permissible to be interfered with for the reason that in the proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial court, can not be interfered with. Further, it is also noticeable that by means of the order dated 19.01.2001, the application moved earlier by late Ram Dutt along with petitioners no.1 and 2, under Order IX Rule 13, CPC stood dismissed in default. There is no application on record by which the petitioners ever challenged the order dated 19.01.2001. Further, it is also noticeable that by means of the order dated 19.01.2001, the application moved earlier by late Ram Dutt along with petitioners no.1 and 2, under Order IX Rule 13, CPC stood dismissed in default. There is no application on record by which the petitioners ever challenged the order dated 19.01.2001. In fact, the order dated 19.01.2001 has never been challenged either by the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest late Ram Dutt. The petitioners, in fact, have moved another application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC which, in my considered opinion, could not have proceeded unless and until the order dated 19.01.2001 was set-aside or rescinded by any competent court of law. The learned trial court, while rejecting the said application, has also given categorical finding that the petitioners have completely failed to explain the delay in moving the application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC and were unable to satisfy the court so that they be given any benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said finding of fact recorded by the learned trial court on the application moved by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been reiterated by the learned appellate court. 9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Raj Kishore Pandey vs. State of U.P., reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 842. Placing reliance on para 8 of the said judgement, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that while examining as to whether sufficient cause in restoration matter has been shown or not, the court concerned is required to look into all the facts pleaded in the application. The said judgement further states that consideration of the existence of sufficient cause is the discretionary power with the Court, however such discretion has to be exercised on sound principles and not on mere technicalities. 10. The said judgement further states that consideration of the existence of sufficient cause is the discretionary power with the Court, however such discretion has to be exercised on sound principles and not on mere technicalities. 10. So far as the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Raj Kishore Pandey (supra) is concerned, there cannot be any quarrel, however the same does not have any application to the facts of the present case as I find that the learned trial court has considered all the aspects of the matter in its entirety and has concluded that the petitioners have clearly failed to show any sufficient cause not only for restoration of the case but also for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in moving the application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC. Moreover, there is another aspect of the matter, as observed above, which is that neither the petitioners nor their predecessor-in-interest late Ram Dutt made any effort to get the order dated 19.01.2001 set-aside or rescinded. 11. Sri Manjiv Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners has thereafter submitted that in fact joining of the petitioners no.1 and 2 along with late Ram Dutt in moving the application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC on 06.04.1981 was based on wrong legal advise and it is settled law that no person can be made to suffer on account of wrong legal advise given to him. 12. In this respect, I may only observe that even if the application dated 06.04.1981 moved by the petitioners no.1 and 2 along with late Ram Dutt under Order IX Rule 13, CPC was moved on wrong legal advise, the same would not entitle even to petitioners no.1 and 2 to challenge the decree after expiry of a period of 32 years. Once the said application was dismissed in default and if it is presumed that the application was moved on wrong legal advise, that would not lead the court to conclude that the petitioners no.1 and 2 did not have knowledge of the ex-parte decree dated 22.10.1980. 13. Once the said application was dismissed in default and if it is presumed that the application was moved on wrong legal advise, that would not lead the court to conclude that the petitioners no.1 and 2 did not have knowledge of the ex-parte decree dated 22.10.1980. 13. It has been argued by learned counsel for petitioners that even if the learned trial court proceeded to decree the suit ex-parte by means of the judgement and order dated 22.10.1980, it was incumbent upon the trial court to have framed the issues and analyze the evidence and only thereafter the ex-parte decree could have been passed. 14. I am afraid, since the validity of the said ex-parte decree dated 22.10.1980 could not be challenged on merit through an application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC before the learned trial court or the appellate court, the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case are highly misconceived. 15. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. There will be no order as to costs.