( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the original defendant No. 3 challenging the order of the District Munsif, Sathyavedu dated 7-2-1994 passed on his file in I. A. No. 189 of 1993 in O. S. No. 32 of 1989. By the impugned order, the District Munsif refused to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the defendant No. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree is illegal and without jurisdiction. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent (Plaintiff) supported the impugned judgment and order.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions on both sides, it is necessary to note a few facts of the case: The 1st respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit against the 3rd defendant directing the 1st respondent and the 3rd defendant, if necessary, to execute and register a regular deed of reconveyance in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property as per the terms of the reconveyance agreement dated 28-3-1977. Further, the plaintiff also prayed for a direction directing the defendants to deliver possession of the plaint