This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the dismissal of an application to condone the delay in representing the papers in an application to set aside the ex parte decree.

2. Heard Mr. S. Kamadevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. P. Valliappan learned counsel appearing for the respondent took notice on caveat.

Therefore, the revision itself was taken up for disposal in view of narrow scope of the controversy involved.

3. The respondent filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 387 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur, for a decree of permanent injunction in respect of a pathway. Suit was decree ex parte, after the written statement was filed, on 210. 1999. The petitioners filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree within time. But unfortunately, it was returned and represented after a long delay. The application in I.A. No. 362 of 2007 to condone the delay of 2602 days in representing the application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the Court below, by an order dated 111. 2007, compelling the petitioners to cone up with the present civil revision petition.

4. Though the delay in representing the applicat