ORDER

1. The appellant was the tenth defendant in the suit. The suit was decreed ex parte by passing a preliminary decree. The appellant filed IA No. 360 of 1995 in OS No. 330 of 1992 in the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, to set aside the ex parte decree. There was a delay of 602 days in filing the said application. The trial court dismissed the said application. The appellant took up the matter in revision before the High Court aggrieved by the said order. The High Court, by the impugned order, did not find any valid ground or good reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. In that view of the matter, the revision petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the trial court as well as the High Court were not right and justified in dismissing the application and revision petition filed for setting aside the ex parte decree having regard to the fact that the appellant is a temple and that a previous executive officer looking after the temple affairs had been transferred and a newly appointed executive officer could not apply in time for setting aside the ex parte decree. According to him, in order to