(1.) An application to set aside an ex parte decree against the defendant was ordered on terms. The trial Court did not accept the plea that the first defendant, the petitioner, was sick and unable to appear in the Court on the date set down for the hearing. It specifically held that the plea of illness was merely a ruse invented to justify the absence. On that finding the petition should have been dismissed. But the trial Court thought that as it was a remanded suit which had varying fortunes in the earlier stages and the plea of the defendants was one of discharge, the defendant should not be denied an opportunity of establishing that plea. It observed :
(2.) In this civil revision petition, it is contended that the order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree is vitiated.
(3.) In the suit, the minor defendants were represented by their mother as guardian. It is common ground that none of the petitioners appeared on the date of the suit and only the first defendant made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. Though the minor defendants were separately represented, no reason was advanced for their failure to appear on the date of the hearing.