ORDER 1. The appellant was the tenth defendant in the suit. The suit was decreed ex parte by passing a preliminary decree. The appellant filed IA No. 360 of 1995 in OS No. 330 of 1992 in the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, to set aside the ex parte decree. There was a delay of 602 days in filing the said application. The trial court dismissed the said application. The appellant took up the matter in revision before the High Court aggrieved by the said order. The High Court, by the impugned order, did not find any valid ground or good reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. In that view of the matter, the revision petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the trial court as well as the High Court were not right and justified in dismissing the application and revision petition filed for setting aside the ex parte decree having regard to the fact that the appellant is a temple and that a previous executive officer looking after the temple affairs had been transferred and a newly appointed executive officer could not apply in time for setting aside the ex parte decree. According to him, in order to do substantial justice, particularly taking note of the fact that the appellant is a temple, one more opportunity may be given to the appellant to fight the case on merits. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that all was not well with the appellant temple. Even on previous two occasions Le. on 20-10-1997 and 22-6-1999, the petition had been dismissed due to the absence of the appellant. In this view, the learned counsel submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned order. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, having perused the impugned order and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the appellant is to be provided with an opportunity to fight the case on merits. The explanation given for condonation of 602 days by the appellant, in Our view, on facts and circumstances was acceptable because the executive officer looking after the affairs of the temple had been transferred a and a new executive officer had taken over recently and in that view, the delay was caused. The explanation given for condonation of 602 days by the appellant, in Our view, on facts and circumstances was acceptable because the executive officer looking after the affairs of the temple had been transferred a and a new executive officer had taken over recently and in that view, the delay was caused. But, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that for no fault of the respondents, they are made to come to this Court. Under the circumstances and having regard to all aspects, we set aside the impugned order, allow the application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree and remit the suit to the trial court for disposal afresh on merits and in accordance with law, subject to the appellant paying costs of rupees five thousand to the respondents. 5. The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed.