No question of limitation arises.

Defendants 4 to 6 in O.S. No. 13 of 1996, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Hosur, are the revision petitioners.

2. Plaintiffs filed the above suit for partition. Even though the present suit is numbered as O.S. No. 13 of 1996, we find that the suit was instituted some time in the year 1986 as O.S. No.200 of 1986. Even though now it is ten years past since the institution of the suit, no progress has been made in the suit. Some of the defendants have filed written statement. Defendants 4 to 6 who have filed the present revision petition were declared ex parte on 13. 1987. They filed an application under O.9. Rule 7, C.P.C. praying that the ex parte order against them may be set aside. They also filed a written statement along with the application.

3. Court below, by the impugned order, dismissed the application, and the same is challenged in this revision.

4. One of the main reasons for dismissing the application is that the application is barred, and the petitioners have not shown good cause for setting aside the ex parte order.

5. The legality of the order is now challenged by the petitioners herein.

6. When the matter came for admission, learned Judge directed notice of motion, and after the respondents entered appearance, learned counsel on both sides were heard.

7. One of the main reasons assigned by the court for dismissing the application is that the application should have been filed under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, i.e., within three years from the date of the Order when they were declared ex parte. Since no application was filed within that time, the court below was of the view that the same is barred.

8. The said finding cannot be correct. It is a pending proceeding, and it is well-settled law that once a suit has been instituted, limitation will not run. In Delhi Development Authority v. Shanti Devi and another, A.I.R. 1982 Delhi 159, a learned Judge of that High Court said that ‘under the Limitation Act no period is prescribed for filing an application for setting aside order proceeding ex parte. Under Rule 7 of 0.9 of the Code the defendant is allowed to file an application at or before the next date of hearing and if he assigns good cause for his non-appearance on the previous date of hearing the court may set aside the order proceeding ex parte The application by the petitioner-defendant under 0.9, Rule 7 was made on the next date of hearing i.e., 16th August, 1979. Thus it is clear that the defendant- petitioner filed the application in accordance with 0.9, Rule 7 of the Code. It must therefore be held that the application was filed in accordance with law. There is no rule that an application under 0.9, Rule 7, is to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order proceeding ex parte. (Italics) The said decision was followed by our High Court in the decision reported in Palani Nathan v. Devanai Ammal, (1989)2 M.L.J. 259, While considering a similar question, this Court held thus:

“...For filing an application under 0.9, Rule 7, C.P.C., no limitation is prescribed and that it is open to the Court to condone her absence and set aside the ex parte order and permit her to take part in the proceedings at any stage of the proceedings. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the provision of O.9, Rule 7, C.P.C. which reads:

‘Where the Court had adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous no-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance.‘

It is only for Setting aside the ex parte decree under O.9, Rule 13, C.P.C., the question of condoning the delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act arises in case there is a necessity for condonation of the delay has arisen. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the