K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. The plaintiff in the suit has preferred these two revisions against the orders passed in I.A.Nos.307 of 1987 and 357 of 1987 in O.S. No. 100 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Judge, Thiruvannamalai. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of these two revision petitions are as follows:- The plaintiff filed the suit against defendants 1 to 3 for the relief of specific performance on the basis of an oral agreement of sale with the first defendant. The suit was posted for the first hearing on 29-8-1986. The second defendant filed a written statement. The third defendant who was impleaded subsequently adopted the written statement. Since the first defendant did not appear, she was set ex parte on the first hearing date, namely, 29-8-1986. The first defendant filed the petition, I.A. No. 307 of 1987 to set aside the ex parte order passed against her and permit her to conduct the suit. It is alleged in the affidavit that the suit was filed against her, her daughter the second defendant and another, on the basis of an oral agreement of sale. At the time when the summons was served on her, she was at Malaysia and she could not come to Thiruvannamalai and engag