1. The petitioner is the plaintiff, aggrieved by the order setting aside the ex parte decree. The petitioner filed O.S.No.2827 of 1982 for partition of half share in the suit property. The respondent is the second defendant. The first defendant, who is not a party to the civil revision petition, is the brother of the petitioner. Both the respondent and the other defendant were originally represented by the same counsel. But they filed separate written statements. The case was taken up for trial and issues were framed. On 22.2.1990, the evidence of P.W.1 was recorded. The matter was posted on 27.2.1990, on which date the Advocate for the respondent herein reported instructions". The respondent was set ex parte and preliminary decree was passed on 7.3.1990. The respondent filed I. A. No. 707 of 1994 for setting aside the ex parte decree. According to him, on 27.2.1990 he was not present in Court and the Advocate had reported 'no instructions' , but he could not appear in Court because of acute dysentery for which he took native treatment and he was prevented by "sufficient cause". Since he has substantial defence in the suit, it was necessary to set aside the ex parte decre