Order passed by the lower court requires no interference in revision.

1. Defendants 4, 6, 12, 27 and 36 in O.S.No.207 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur, are the revision petitioners.

2. The civil revision petition itself has been filed against the dismissal of their application in I.A.No.37 of 1997 for condoning the delay of 797 days in filing the petition under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree, dt. 1.9.1994, passed against them.

3. The suit was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein representing Krishna Mandiram Trust, Karur, as its Trustees against the revision petitioners and 37 others for recovery of possession, for declaration of their right, for permanent injunction restraining the first respondent/State and its Officers and servants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, for recovery of possession of portions of the suit property from defendants 2 to 25, and for mesne profits from the date of the suit till possession to be determined under Order 20, Rule 1 C.P.C.

4. The plaintiffs filed the suit as indigent persons and after they were permitted to sue as indigent persons, the suit was dismissed for default once on 6.11.1989. However, it was restored on 13.10.1992 and thereafter the revision petitioners and others remained ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed against them on 1.9.1994. Alleging that they had not received any communication about the restoration of the suit and the ex parte decree passed against them from their Advocate, they took out application in I.A.No.37 of 1997 on 6.12.1996 to condone the delay of 797 days in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. The only reason given in the affidavit in support of the application was, as already noted, they had not received any communication about the restoration of the suit and the ex parte decree passed against them from their Advocate. According to them, they had a good and valid defence in the above suit. Application was opposed by respondents 1 to 3 by filing a counter stating that the petitioners were residing close to the Court, that they were knowing what was happening, that since they did not have a case they had wantonly allowed the suit to be decreed and now to protract the proceedings they had come forward with an application with false and untenable allegation, that the reasons given were not bona fide, that respondents 32 to 38 in the application were not parties to the suit and they were not entitled to file the petition, that the petition had been filed with an intention to squat on the property, that previously they had filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree and after getting the ex parte decree set aside they remained ex parte once again, and that it would clearly show that they had no intention to conduct the case. The counter further alleges that the suit had been pending for 17 years and more, and that it would be highly unjust if the delay got condoned.

5. The lower Court after considering the rival contentions, in an elaborately considered order, dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioners and it is as against this the present civil revision petition has been filed.

6. Mr. T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the plaintiffs themselves allowed the suit to go for default once and they should not find fault with the revision petitioners that they had not been diligent. The learned counsel further submitted that the revision petitioners had an excellent case on merits and they should be afforded an opportunity to contest the case, and that the petition could be allowed on terms. The learned counsel also relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions:

1. Jai Pal Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, AIR 2000 SC 3496 ;

2. Vasu Thevar v. Rukmani Ammal, 2000 (1) LW 723; and 3. Devi v. Jayaraman, 2001 (3) CTC 67.

7. Mr. Peter Francis, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, submitted that the revisio