This revision has been preferred by the defendants 1 to 4 who were petitioners in I.A. No: 487 of 2007 in O.S. No: 43 of 2005 against an order of dismissal of their plea to set aside the ex-parte order passed against them on 05.07.2007.

.2. The brief facts of the case pleaded by both the parties before the lower Court are as follows:

.“The suit schedule properties are ancestrol properties. On 02.09.1989 the properties were partitioned and the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of the 1st defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No: 43 of 2005 was before the Sub Court, Mettur. The case of the revision petitioners was that some compromise talk was going on between the parties and hence, they did not appear before the Court on 05.07.2007 and for their absence on that particular day, they were set ex-parte by the Court and hence, this revision before this Court.”

3. The lower Court had come to the conclusion of dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners / defendants 1 to 4 which was filed for the purpose of setting aside the ex-parte order passed against them. Against the said order, the petitioners have preferred this revision.

.4. Heard both sides in full. The learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants 1 to 4 would submit in his argument that suit was filed by the plaintiffs / respondents for specific performance and in the said suit, the petitioners could not appear before the Court on 05.07.2007 as compromise talks were in progress between the parties. But the lower Court had taken note of the absence of the petitioners / defendants 1 to 4 and had set them ex-parte and the petition filed by the petitioners to set aside the ex-parte order was wrongly dismissed by the lower Court by holding that the petitioners had presented the petition into Court after a lapse of four months and therefore, ex-parte order passed against them cannot be set aside. He would further submit in his argument that the suit was pending at the time when the petitioners / defendants 1 to 4 have filed the petition to set aside ex-parte order and therefore, the lower Court ought to have permitted the petitioners / defendants 1 to 4 to participate in the trial by filing written submissions and, therefore, the order passed by the lower Court ought to have been interfered with and the revision petition has to be allowed.

5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent / plaintiff would submit in his argument that the petitioners had no bonafide in applying to the Court to set aside the ex-parte order. They have prepared the affidavit petition long prior to the filing of the petition before the Court and the petition was filed belatedly for the purpose of prolonging the case and therefore, the lower Court had rightly dismissed the petition as they had no intention to participate in the trial. He would further submit that the suit was in a part-heard stage and yet another suit in O.S. No: 66 of 2006 was clubbed together and the evidence was ordered to be recorded in O.S. No: 66 of 2006 and the lower Court found that the application filed by the petitioners are highly belated and had come to the conclusion of dismissing the same and, therefore, the order of the lower Court need not be interfered with and the revision petition may be dismissed.

6. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides. The admitted facts would be that the petitioners / defendants 1 to 4 had filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte order passed against them on 05.07.2007 and the said petition was found to have been prepared a long prior to the filing of the petition and was kept at the hands of the petitioners without being presented into Court. The explanation offered by the learned counsel for the petitioners would be that the mentioning of the date as if it was prepared long prior to the filing of the petition would have been a typographical mistake and the lower Court should not harp on the said defect a