Judgment :- 1. This revision filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 50 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam is directed against the order of the lower court setting aside an ex parte decree passed on 14th August, 1980 in the said suit at the instance of the defendant. The suit was instituted by the petitioner herein in 1977. Though the suit summons were duly served on the first defendant, the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Collector of Thanjavur, no written statement was filed. The suit was posted for trial on 3rd March, 1978. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the first defendant on that day, the first defendant was set ex parte. The court then adjourned the suit for trial. On the adjourned date, namely, 26th August, 1978, the plaintiff marked his documents and closed the evidence. The court then posted the case for arguments on 27th August, 1978. After the conclusion of the argument, the court reserved judgment in the suit, but before the judgment was delivered on 11th September, 1978, the first defendant filed an application before the lower court for setting aside the ex parte order passed on 3rd March, 1978. The petitioner-plaintiff opposed the application. The Court however, ordered the application, observing that it was doing so in the interests of justice. Against the said order of the lower court setting aside the ex parte order, dated 3rd March, 1978, a revision petition was filed before this Court in C.R.P. 2697 of 1978 and this Court set aside the order of the lower court, dated 25th March, 1980. This Court held that the order of the lower court setting aside the ex parte order will not fall within O. 9. R. 7, C.P. Code, as the suit was adjourned for judgment and therefore, the lower court had no jurisdication to pass the order in question either under O. 9, R. 7, C.P.C. or under the inherent powers of the court. Thus, the order of the lower court setting aside the ex parte order dated 3rd March, 1973 stood set aside by this Court. In the meanwhile, the trial court passed an ex parte decree on 14th August, 1980. The first defendant thereafter filed an application under O. 9. R. 13, C.P. Code, in I.A. 733 of 1980 to set aside the ex parte decree. In the meanwhile, the trial court passed an ex parte decree on 14th August, 1980. The first defendant thereafter filed an application under O. 9. R. 13, C.P. Code, in I.A. 733 of 1980 to set aside the ex parte decree. That application has been ordered by the lower court on the first defendant paying the plaintiff Rs. 100 as costs. As against the said order the present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff. 2. According to the petitioner plaintiff, the same grounds which were urged in support of the application for setting aside the ex parte order have now been alleged for setting the ex parte decree, that the order of the lower court setting aside the ex parte order having been set aside by this Court, the decision rendered by this Court would operate as res judicata in this application and the lower court has not gone into the question as to whether the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. 2687 of 1978 will bar the present application for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lower court has not given any reason as to why the ex parte decree should be set aside and it has also not gone into the question whether the first defendant has shown any sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date when the ex parte decree was passed. On the facts of this case, I am inclined to agree with the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lower court has not given the proper reason for setting aside the ex parte decree. A perusal of the impugned order of the lower court will show that the court has referred to the question as to how the delay in filing the written statement could have been caused. The reason for not filing the written statement cannot be the reason for the first defendants non-appearance on the date of the hearing of the suit. The lower court appears to proceed on the basis that the ex parte decree has to be set aside with a view to put an end to the litigation and to tender justice on merits. The lower court appears to proceed on the basis that the ex parte decree has to be set aside with a view to put an end to the litigation and to tender justice on merits. The lower court has not referred to any material from which one could say that the first defendant bad sufficient cause for seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. In this case, the suit was fifed in the year 1977 and the ex parte decree was passed on 14th August, 1980, nearly three years after the date of the filing of the suit. What are the steps the first defendant had taken since the date of service of summons, has not been explained as also what are the reasons which prevented the first defendant from appearing on the date of the trial. In this view of the matter, the order of the lower court cannot be legally sustained. The revision petition is therefore allowed and the order of the lower court is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.