( 1 ) THE defendants are the appellants. This CMA. is preferred against the order setting aside the exparte decree dated 16-1-1982 passed against them on terms said to be onerous. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the suit was posted for filling written statement on 18-12-1981 and it was adjourned to 15-1-1982. In the interregnum the second defendant went on pilgrimage to Subarimalai and as a result he could not be present on 15-1-1982 when the suit was called for hearing. His mother, the first defendant is a widow and she is not able to attend the court Therefore both of them could not be present on that day, on his return to the village on 19-1-1982 the second appellant immediately contacted his counsel. The counsel informed him that the suit was decreed exparte on 16-1-1982 and that the counsel also was not present when the suit was called on 15-1-1982. In the above circumstances he was prevented from appearing in the court.

( 2 ) THE fact that the second appellant went on pilgrimage was not denied in the counter affidavit. The lower Court also found as a matter of fact, that the absence of the second appellant from the court w