R. Banumathi, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in A.No.2322/2006 in Tr.C.S.No.578/2002 declining to condone the delay of 714 days in filing the application under Or.9 R.13 CPC and dismissing the Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. Brief facts are as follows :-

The appellants/Defendants entered into a joint venture Agreement in March 1998 with the respondent/ plaintiff for developing her property situated at Aminjakarai. Dispute arose between the parties and hence the terms of Agreement could not be carried out and dispute led to filing of suits by both parties. Appellants/Defendants filed C.S.No.113/2001 on the file of High Court for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- by way of damages from the respondent/plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S.No. 86/2002 [instituted as informa pauperis] for declaration that the Agreement dated 06.04.1998 stood cancelled because of the non performance of the part of the Agreement by the first Defendant and for a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 31.03.1999 executed in favour of the third Defendant is null and void and for Permanent Injunction. The suit was transferred to High Court and renumbered as C.S.No.578/2002. The matter was posted in the list for trial and because of non appearance of appellant, the suit was decreed exparte in the year 2002. The appellants filed application A.No.5460/ 2003 to set aside the exparte Decree passed against them, which was allowed on cost of Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants preferred O.S.A.No.7/2004 wherein the Division Bench has confirmed the order directing the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/-within two weeks from the date of the order. In compliance with the said condition, the appellants have deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 28.01.2004. Thereafter, the suit was again listed and decreed exparte on 10.03.2004.

3. E.P.Nos.59/2006 and 60/2006 were filed to execute the Decree for recovery of damages. E.P. notice was served upon the Indian Overseas Bank where the second Defendant is working for his salary attachment. Thereafter, the appellants have filed A.No.2322/2006 to condone the delay of 714 days in filing the application under Or.9 R.13 CPC in filing the application to set aside the exparte Decree.

4. In support of the application, the appellants filed affidavit stating that after the exparte Decree was set aside and matter was again taken up for trial and in view of differences with their earlier counsel, they could not pursue the matter and that the delay is not wanton or deliberate and prayed for condonation of delay of 714 days.

5. The respondent/plaintiff inter-alia resisted the application contending that the appellant had knowledge of the Decree passed on 10.03.2004 and have not taken immediate steps to set aside the same. According to the plaintiff, the application has been filed to delay the execution proceedings and the appellants have adopted dilatory tactics to defeat the claim of the plaintiff.

6. In consideration of the materials, the learned Single Judge held that the supporting affidavit is bereft of particulars. The learned Single Judge further observed that the appellants have not come to the Court with clean hands but have adopted dilatory tactics and on that ground, declined to condone the delay. The learned Single Judge also observed that appellants having been served with notice dated 211. 2005, had knowledge of the exparte Decree but had chosen to file application only on 24.03.2006 and the delay is not satisfactorily explained.

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order, appellants have preferred this appeal.

8. Whether the appellants have satisfactorily explained the delay of 714 days in filing the application under Or.9 R.13 CPC is the question involved in this intra-court appeal. Taking us through the records, the learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge was not justified in obs