R.MALA,J.

1. This Original Side Appeal has been arising out of the order dated 29.07.2009 made in A.No.5123 of 2008 in C.S.No.532 of 2001 and condoning the delay of 498 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree dated 19.02.2007 made in C.S.No.532 of 2001.

2. Appellants as Plaintiffs filed a suit in C.S.No.532 of 2001 praying to set aside the sale deed dated 27.01.1999 executed by the second defendant in favour of first defendant registered as document No.203 of 1999 and for a declaration that the Appellants/Plaintiffs are the original owners having absolute title to the suit property viz., Door No.32 (Old No.25A), Muniram Pandian Lane, Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021 and also for permanent injunction and other consequential relief. Along with the suit, Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed application for injunction, in which, the first respondent/first defendant entered appearance. Since the first respondent/first defendant has not filed the written statement in time, the matter was placed before "Undefended Board" and exparte decree has been passed on 19.02.2007.

3. First respondent herein has filed an application in A.No.5123 of 2008 to condone the delay of 498 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree dated 19.02.2007, stating that he had fallen from the ladder and suffered multiple fractures in the leg and that he was initially getting treatment in Madras and later went to Puthur for further treatment and therefore, he could not contact his counsel and filed written statement in time. He has also filed an additional affidavit in the said application.

4. Strongly resisting the application, the Appellants/Plaintiffs filed counter stating that the First Respondent/Applicant was made aware of the decree dated 19.02.2007 in the appeal proceedings in R.C.A.No.152 of 2003 filed by the tenant K.Maden Mohan Bagri and having participated in the proceedings, the first respondent had chosen to abandon the proceedings. The Appellants/Plaintiffs have denied the averments in the affidavit in A.No.5123 of 2008. The Appellants/Plaintiffs further averred that the first respondent created a forged sale deed and that he is in the habit of committing such fraudulent acts and is also facing criminal prosecution and that the first respondent is squatting on the property for the past several years and he deserves no indulgence.

5. Learned single Judge after hearing the arguments of both sides counsel, allowed the application and condoned the delay on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-to the Appellants/Plaintiffs within a period of two weeks, against which, the present O.S.A. has been preferred by the Appellants/Plaintiffs.

6. Challenging the order passed in A.No.5123 of 2008, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants/Plaintiffs would submit that the first respondent/first defendant did not come to the Court with clean hands and not properly explained the delay of 498 days. It is further submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the written statement and appeared before the Court. Moreover, he has filed contradict statement in his affidavit and additional affidavit. He further submitted that no document has been filed to prove that he was undergone treatment during the relevant period. It is further submitted that first respondent/first defendant is having prior knowledge about the disposal of the suit and exparte decree passed on 19.02.2007. If the condone delay petition is allowed, valuable rights accrued to the Appellants/Plaintiff will be affected. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the Judgments of the Apex Court and this Court.

7. Refuting the same, first respondent, who appeared in person has submitted that he has purchased the property and made construction on the ground and first floor. Eight tenants are residing along with first respondent and he has been occupying one