The defendants 3 to 5 in O.S.No.3257 of 2004 are the revision petitioners before this Court.

2. O.S.No.3257 of 2004 (originally filed in O.S.No.945 of 1997) was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for partition, separate possession and also for consequential injunction.

3. The suit was posted for filing written statement of the defendants 3 to 5 on 27-03-2000. But the same was not filed on that day and the defendants 3 to 5 were set ex-parte in the suit on 27-03-2000. An application, in I.A.No.37 of 2006 was filed under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex-parte order dated 27-03-2000. I.A.No.37 of 2006 was dismissed by the trial Court on 05-07-2006, against which, a revision in CRP.No.12260 of 2006 was filed and this Court dismissed the revision petition on 18-12-2006.

4. Thereafter, on 28-02-2007, the defendants 3 to 5 filed an application in I.A.No.631 of 2007, under Section 151 CPC, praying to permit them to take part in the further proceedings of the suit from the adjuourned stage of the suit. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.631 of 2006 that, after the dismissal of the CRP.No.12260 of 2006 by this Court on 18-12-2006, they could not claim to be relegated to the position that they occupied at the commencement of trial. But, the suit is only in an adjourned hearing stage and the arguments are yet to be commenced. They are legally entitled to part-take in the further proceedings of the above suit from the adjourned stage onwards, for which, the ex-parte order passed on 27-03-2000 need not be held against them. Hence, they filed I.A.No.631 of 2007 for the aforesaid relief.

5. This was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs by filing a counter contending that as the order dated 18-12-2006 made in CRP.No.12260 of 2006 by the High Court has reached its finality, the revision petitioners could not maintain the application as the order passed in the CRP would operate as res judicata. The trial Court by order dated 24-01-2008 accepted the objections raised by the respondents/plaintiffs and accordingly dismissed the application. The trial Court further found that I.A.No.631 of 2007 was filed after six years from the date when they were set ex-parte and therefore, they could not maintain the application. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the above revision has been filed by the defendants 3 to 5 in the suit.

6. On 26-02-2008, this Court ordered notice regarding admission and granted interim stay in M.P.No.1 of 2008. The respondents entered appearance through their counsel.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the entire materials available on record.

8.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that under Order IX Rule 6 CPC, when the defendant does not appear when the suit is called for hearing after summons were duly served, the Court may make an order that the suit be heard ex-parte. Under Order IX Rule 7, when the Court adjourned that hearing of the suit ex-parte and the defendant appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-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. According to the learned counsel, if the application filed under Order IX Rule 7 is dismissed, it does not mean that the defendants should not participate in further proceedings at all. His right to participate in the further proceedings has not been taken away by Order IX Rule 7 and therefore, the revision petitioners are entitled to participate in the further proceedings of the suit. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1964 SC 993 (Arjun Singh -vs- Mohindra Kumar and others) and AIR 1955 SC 425 (Sangram Singh vs- Election Tribunal Kotah and another). He also relied on a judgment of the Honourab