No need to send fresh summons to defendants.

By consent of both the counsel, the civil revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No.54 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ariyalur. The respondent herein filed the said suit originally on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur. For administrative reasons, by order dated 21. 1992 the suit was transferred to the District Munsif Court. Ariyalur and the first hearing was posted on 13. 1992, on which date the counsel for the plaintiff filed vakalat on behalf of the plaintiff. Notice was ordered to the defendants by 30.3.1992. The matter was adjourned to 30.4.1992 by extending the time for parties appearance. On 30.4.1992 the matter was adjourned to 20.7.! 992 for the appearance of the defendants. However, on 26. 1992, on an application filed by the plaintiff, the hearing of the suit was advanced to 26. 1992. On that date, the ex parte decree was passed.

2. The petitioners herein filed an application I.A. No.625 of 1993 to condone the delay of 380 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree in the said suit. The said application was dismissed by the trial court, against which the present revision has been filed.

3. The counsel for the petitioners contended that on 13. 1992 the suit was adjourned to 30.3.1992 with a direction to take notice to the defendants. On 30.3.1992 the matter was adjourned to 30.4.1992, extending the time for the appearance of parties. On 30.4.1992, the matter was adjourned to 20.7.1992, since there was no representation on behalf of the defendants. But, however, by order dated 26. 1992, the suit was advanced to 26. 1992 and the ex parte decree was passed. The petitioners were not served with the notice. When the lower court has directed the issue of notice on 13. 1992. the lower court ought to have waited till the service is effected on the defendants. The petitioners were not aware about the transfer of the suit from the District Munsif Court, Perambalur to the District Court, Ariyalur. Only on receipt of notice in the execution petition, they came to know about the ex parte decree dated 26. 1992 and immediately the application has been filed for setting aside the ex parte decree with an application to condone the delay. Hence the delay is bona fide.

4. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent contended that on 13. 1992 at the first call before the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur the plaintiff’s counsel had filed the vakalat. The transferor court had already informed the respective counsel about the transfer of the suit to the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur and as such there is no necessity for the issue of any summons to the defendants. The direction issued by the District Munsif, Ariyalur to take the summons to the defendants is a mistake. On realising the mistake, the suit was taken up on the ground that no fresh notice is necessary for the defendants. When there is no Rule contemplating the issue of fresh notice, the direction issued by the transferee court cannot be taken advantage of by the defendants in the suit. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay of 380 days. Since the delay is exhorbitant one, the order of the lower court in dismissing the application needs no interference.

5. I carefully considered the contention of both the counsel. There is no dispute that the suit was originally filed before the District Munsif Court, Perambalur which subsequently transferred to the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur. In the transferee court, the first call had been fixed on 13. 1992 and on that date the plaintiff’s counsel had filed the vakalat. Hence the transferor court had informed the respective counsels about the transfer of the suit and only on that basis the plaintiff had engaged the counsel before the transferee court on the very first hearing date. There is no explanation for the nonappearance of the defendants on 13. 1992 before the transferee court.

6. In the af