ORDER :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing.

The defendants in OS No. 264 of 2013 whose application to condone the delay of 862 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed in OS No. 264 of 2013 on 08.04.2015 came to be dismissed, are on Revision.

2. The suit in OS No. 264 of 2013 was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 25.04.2011. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had entered into an agreement for sale of the suit properties for a total consideration of Rs. 26,40,000/- and had received of an advance of Rs. 8,80,000/- on' the date of the agreement. A period of six months was fixed for the performance of the contract. It is also claimed that the second defendant had received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 15.09.2011. Claiming that the defendants did not come forward to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute the Sale Deed, despite demands, the plaintiffs had sought for specific performance.

3. The suit came to be decreed ex parte on 08.04.2015. The plaintiffs filed Execution Petition in EP No. 33 of 2015 seeking execution of the decree. It is at this juncture, the defendants came up with the Application in IA No. 142 of 2017 seeking condonation of delay. They had also filed their written statement along with the said application. According to the petitioners, they could not appear on 08.04.2015 as the first defendant, aged mother of the second defendant Sampathkumar, fell sick and she had to be rushed to the hospital.

4. It is also stated that when the application to set aside the ex parte order made in the Execution Petition was being prepared again the mother of the deponent fell sick and she had to be rushed to the hospital, therefore the application to set aside the ex parte decree could not be filed on the same day i.e., 16.11.2016. Since the health condition of the mother of the deponent viz., the second defendant continued to be bad, the second defendant could not meet the counsel and take steps to have the ex parte decree set aside. It is also stated that the delay occurred only due to the aforesaid circumstances and the delay is neither willful nor wanton.

5. This application was resisted by the plaintiffs contending that the reasons for the delay are not true. It is also stated that the plaintiffs have deposited the balance of sale consideration also before the Court and therefore, there is no justification for the delay on the part of the defendants. The plaintiffs/respondents would also contend that despite the Court having granted more than a year's time, the defendants did not chose to file their written statement and the defendants were served in the Execution Petition on 14.12.2015 despite such service, they did not chose to file an application to have the ex parte decree set aside.

6. It is also stated that the plaintiffs had spent a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/- in purchasing the stamp papers for obtaining the fair sale deed. It is also stated that the petitioners should have filed this petition only after depositing the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs, particularly, the sum of Rs. 1,98,000/- in execution of the Sale Deed. The defendants also filed an application to re-open the Interlocutory Application to enable them to produce certain documents, viz. the Medical Records.

7. The learned Trial Judge, who heard the application, concluded that the reasons for the delay cannot be accepted. The learned Trial Judge also relied upon Order 8 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that the written statement should be filed within 30 days from the date of service. On the above conclusions, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application. Aggrieved the petitioners/defendants have come up with this Civil Revision Petition.

8. I have heard Mr. T. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for M/s. A. Thiyagarajan, for the petitioners and Mr. M. Guruprasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

9. Mr. T.