Suppression of fact by the petitioner surfaced in course of hearing.

The petitioner is the second defendant.

.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.846 of 1990 against the Commissioner, Mugaiyur Panchayat Union as first defendant and the President, Kottamarudhur Panchayat Board as second defendant, the petitioner herein, praying for declaration and permanent injunction. When the matter was posted for filing of written statement on 22. 1992, the petitioner was not present in the court when called and hence, he was set ex parte. Then, the suit was proceeded in respect of the first defendant alone. On 18. 1997 the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.618 of 1997 for setting aside the ex parte order.

3. The trial court heard both the parties. By the order dated 19. 1997, the lower court on consideration of the petition and the counter and submissions made by the respective counsel, dismissed the said petition, as there is no merit. Aggrieved over this impugned order, the petitioner has filed this revision before this Court.

4. Mr.Achuthan, the counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the order under revision refusing to set aside the ex parte order is not on proper reason. In fact, it is contended that on the date of filing the application to set aside the ex parte order, that is, on 18. 1997, the written statement was also filed along with the said petition and however, the same was returned. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner did not appear on 22. 1992 due to illness and therefore, the absence on the said date must have been condoned and ex parte order ought to have been set aside.

5. Ms.Rajeswari, the counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would vehemently oppose the petition on the ground that the petitioner has not come with clean hands inasmuch as he has suppressed very many factors before the lower court as well as this Court. She would further contend that the suit was filed in November, 1990, that the counsel for the petitioner, the second defendant entered appearance on 112. 1990 by filing a vakalat, that thereafter, the opportunities were given to the petitioner to file the written statement, that is, totally 11 times the case was adjourned to enable the petitioner to file a written statement, that is, on 2. 1991, 13. 1991, 23. 1991, 16. 1991. 7. 1991. 30.7.1991, 28. 1991, 19. 1991, 11. 1991, 112. 1991 and 22. 1992 and that despite these opportunities, the petitioner did not choose to appear before the court nor to file the written statement through the counsel.

6. It is also contended by the counsel for the respondent that when an application was filed by the respondents in I.A.No.1775 of 1990 for violation of the injunction order as against the petitioner, the petitioner filed a counter on 11. 1993. Therefore, it is submitted that the reason for failure to appear before the lower court on 22. 1992 cannot be accepted. Moreover, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order nearly after five years, that is, on 18. 1997.

7. In this application there is no sufficient cause given as to why such an inordinate delay was caused. It is also to be noted that subsequent to the ex parte order passed on 22. 1992, all the witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff and D.W. 1 was also examined on behalf of the first defendant. Now, the matter has been posted for examining the other witnesses on behalf of the first defendant. At this stage, according to the counsel for the respondents, this application has been filed in order to drag on the proceedings further. In order to support her submission, the learned counsel cited the decision in Deo Nand v. Achaiber Misir, A.I.R. 1954 All. 361.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective side and also gone through the petition, counter and other records.

.9. In this connection reference may be made to 0.9, Rule 7, C.P.C. which runs as follows:

.“Where the court has adjourned the hearing of the suit