ORDER :

Abdul Quddhose, J.

1. The instant revision has been filed challenging the order dated 07.09.2012 passed by the XIVth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in 1. A.No. 18018 of 2010 in O.S.No.1740 of 2003.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant revision:

2. The petitioners are the defendants 2 to 4, the first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant in the suit O.S.No.1740 of 2003. The first respondent filed a summary suit under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 3,18,546/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation against the petitioners. The suit was filed for the alleged non-repayment of loan by the late S.K. Bansal who is the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second and third petitioners, in which, an ex-parte decree came to be passed on 24.09.2003. I.A.No.18018 of 2010 was filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.1740 of 2003 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, on coming to know that the decree was passed under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure, an application I.A.No.4745 of 2011 was filed by the petitioners for amendment of I.A.No.18018 of 2010. Seperate counters were filed by the first respondent in I.A.No.18018 of 2010 as well as in I.A.No.4745 of 2010. The amendment application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.4745 of 2011 to amend the provision of law as Order 37, Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure was allowed by the Trial Court by its order dated 05.04.2011. Subsequently, I.A.No.12096 of 2011 was also filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.18018 of 2010 seeking permission of the Court to file an additional affidavit showing special circumstances to set aside the decree in order to comply with the requirements of Order 37, Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure. A counter was also filed by the first respondent in I.A.No.12096 of 2011. The Trial Court allowed I.A.No.12096 of 2011 by order dated 07.09.2012 and permitted the petitioners to file an additional affidavit. But by order dated 07.09.2012 passed on the same date in I.A.No.18018 of 2010, the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 24.09.2003 passed under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the said order, the instant revision has been filed.

Submissions of the learned counsels:

3. Heard, Mrs. Chitra Sampath, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the first respondent.

4. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, the first petitioner is the wife and the second and third petitioners are the children of S.K. Bansal. According to her, it is the case of the first respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit that S.K. Bansal borrowed money from the first respondent and did not repay the same and as on 31.03.2000, he has acknowledged that a sum of Rs. 3,18,546/- is due and payable to the first respondent by him. Therefore, based on those averments, the first respondent filed a summary suit O.S.No.1740 of 2003, after the death of S.K. Bansal against the petitioners who are his legal heirs for the recovery of the said sum together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation to the extent of the properties inherited by them from S.K. Bansal.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.18018 of 2010, the petitioners have categorically pleaded that they did not receive any suit summons and further they have stated that only on 05.10.2009, when they applied for Encumbrance Certificate, they came to know that several suits were filed by the first respondent against the petitioners. Thereafter, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioners immediately filed an application I.A.No.18018 of 2010 under Ord