K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.

The respondents in I.A, 716 of 1999 and 717 of 1999 in O.S. No. 53 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thodupuzha are the revision petitioners. The judgment passed by the District Court, Thodupuzha in C.M. A. 4 of 2000, reversing the order passed by the trial court and allowing the petitions is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. O.S. No. 53 of 1996 before the trial court was filed by the revision petitioner against the respondents on 21.3.1996, claiming damages for committing trespass and waste in the plaint schedule property. Since the respondents/ defendants did not file any written statement after several adjournments, the trial court set them exparte on 20.2.1998 and posted the suit for evidence to 27.2.98 and on that day an exparte decree was passed against the respondents. The respondents filed I. A. 272 of 1998 on 21.3.1998 under S.151 of the CPC to set aside the exparte order dated 20.2.98 passed against them. That petition underwent several adjournments and ultimately on 27.3.1999, the trial court dismissed that I. A., holding that there is no prayer in the I. A. to set aside the exparte decree. Thereafter the respondents filed I.A. 716 of 1999 under S.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree and I.A. 717 of 1999 under O. IX R.13 of CPC to set aside the exparte decree. After enquiry, the trial court dismissed both the applications by order dated 8..12.1999 finding that the respondents have not made out sufficient cause to set aside the exparte decree and the petitions have been filed without bonafides. The respondents preferred CMA 4 of 2000 before lower appellate court challenging the above order. The lower appellate court by the impugned judgment, allowed the petitions on payment of cost of Rs. 5000/-by the appellant within 15 days of the order and directed on payment of cost before the trial court the exparte decree will be set aside and also directed the trial court to dispose of the suit as early as possible.

3. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that I.A. 272 of 1998 was filed by the respondents to set aside the exparte order passed against them on 20.2.1998 and not to set aside the exparte decree passed against them on 27.2.1998. It is also contended that in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. 272 of 1998, the respondents have alleged that they did not appear before the court on the belief that an adjournment will be given by the trial court to file the written statement. It is also contended that in the suit the respondents were set exparte after giving 12 adjournments to file written statement and I.A. 217 of 1998 filed by them to set aside the exparte order was dismissed on 27.3.1999 after giving several adjournments to the respondents and inspite of that they failed to adduce evidence. It is further contended that in the affidavits filed by the respondents in support of IA 716 of 1999 and IA 717 of 1999 on 14.9.1999 under S.5 of the Limitation Act and under O. IX, R.I 3 of CPC respectively they have stated that as they reside at different places on employment and were not aware of the dismissal of I.A. 272 of 1998 till they received notice of execution of the decree, the delay in filing petition to set aside the exparte decree was caused. It is also contended by the revision petitioner that in the evidence given by D2 as WI in those petitions he has deposed that the first defendant, who is the father of the second defendant in the suit, was hospitalized at the time the suit was posted for filing written statement and they had to obtain documents from the criminal court in criminal case pending in respect of the very same cause of action and the defendants 5 and 6 were away they could not attend the court. Therefore the revision petitioner contended that the respondents have given three different versions for their failure to file the written statement and to appear before