The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. This revision petition is preferred by the plaintiff questioning the legality of the order passed by the II Additional District Munsif, Salem in I.A.No.144 of 1997 in O.S.No.1658 of 1996 dated 10.9.1999.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction in O.S.No.1658 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Salem and the said suit was decreed as against the defendants exparte. The defendants filed an application in I.A.No.144 of 1997 under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 C.P.C. to set aside the exparte decree passed in the said suit on 24.2.1997 and the learned District Munsif allowed the same. Hence, the revision.

3. Heard Mr.A.Thiagarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.P.Valliappan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Court below ought to have held that the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 C.P.C. is not maintainable for the simple reason that the respondents have not established sufficient cause for