Pursuant to the order dated 26th March, 2014 the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. Heard the Counsel.

2. The short question arising for consideration in this appeal is, whether the proceedings taken out to set aside the ex-parte decree constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act so as to extend the period of limitation of an appeal against the ex-parte decree.

3. The brief facts required to be stated for deciding the question are as follows:

The petitioners, the original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 2007 against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the suit property. It was decreed ex-parte on 4th July, 2008. A month thereafter, i.e. on 5th August, 2008 the respondents obtained its certified copy. On 12th August, 2008 they filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code ("CPC" for short) for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The trial Court by its detailed judgment and order dated 6th August, 2010 rejected the application. The respondents challenged the order by preferring appeal to the District Court on 29th September, 2010, but about three years after it's filing, withdrew it on 11th June, 2013. Immediately on the next day, i.e. on 12th June, 2013 they filed appeal against the ex-parte decree along-with Civil Misc. Application No. 56 of 2013 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 4 years 10 months and 8 days. By the order dated 20th February, 2014 the District Court allowed the application and condoned the delay. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

4. In their application for condonation of delay, the respondents claimed that the writ of summons in the suit was served upon the son of respondent no.2. Though the respondents are brothers, on account of differences, inter-se, respondent no.2 has been residing separately. Son of respondent no.2 is also not on good terms with him. He therefore did not inform the respondents about the service of writ of summons. In view of these facts, the respondents carried an impression that service of writ of summons upon them was not proper. Therefore, they filed the application for setting aside ex-parte decree. Under the same wrong impression, they also preferred appeal against the order rejecting their application for setting aside ex-parte decree. On realising their mistake, the respondents withdrew their appeal relating to setting aside ex-parte decree and filed Regular Civil Appeal to challenge the ex-parte decree. Since the respondents were pursuing wrong proceedings, the delay in filing the First Appeal should be condoned.

5. The petitioners had opposed the application contending that, the facts alleged in the application are false. According to them, there are no disputes or differences, inter-se the respondents. There are also no disputes between respondent no.2 and his son. The respondents had consciously remained absent before the Court after receipt of the writ of summons. It was also contended that, after having elected one remedy against the ex-parte decree, it is not open for the respondents to resort to another remedy.

6. The trial Court allowed the application by imposing costs of Rs.3,000/- upon the respondents. Though the order runs into 8 paras, the reasons stated in just two lines, read as follows:

“Applicants did not get opportunity to contest the suit, to adduce their evidence. Applicants have spent time in wrong proceeding, hence it will be just and proper to condone delay in preferring Appeal.”

7. For assailing the order of the trial Court, Mr. Kulkarni the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the order merely makes a brief reference to the petitioners' objections to the application but does not deal with the same. He also submits that, the remedy of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC resorted to by the respondents, cannot be said to be wrong proceedings an