Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition is against the order dated 25-2-2003 made in I.A.No.6 of 2003 in O.S.No.103 of 2001, by the learned Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Judge No.I, Coimbatore.) This Revision is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Judge No.I, Coimbatore, made in I.A.No.6 of 2003 in O.S.No.103 of 2001 dated 25-2-2003, dismissing the Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 242 days in filing the Application under Or.9 R.13 C.P.C. The Defendants 6 and 7, are the Revision Petitioners. 2. The relevant facts for disposal of this Revision Petition could briefly be stated thus:- a) O.S.No. 1179 of 1995:- The Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation filed the Suit for recovery of Rs.4,22,183/-. The case of the Plaintiff-Corporation is that for the purpose of purchasing a Generator for the Textile Mill of the First Defendant-Firm, a Term Loan of Rs.1,97,000/- was sanctioned on 2-6-1989. For due and proper consideration received, the First Defendant represented by its Partners, executed a Deed of Hypothecation on 29-12-1989 in favour of the Plaintiff agreeing to pay the Plaintiff the Term Loan of Rs.1,97,000/-, with interest at 5.5% over the I.D.B.I. Rate, subject to the minimum of 15.5% per annum. The Defendants were chronic defaulters. Hence, the Plaintiff-Corporation decided to exercise the right available to them under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, to repossess and sell the Hypotheca. After issuing the foreclosure notice, the Plaintiff's Officials went to the First Defendant-Firm to make an inspection and to repossess the Hypotheca. At that time, it was found that the Defendants had illegally removed and secreted the Generator Set and other Machineries contrary to the terms and conditions of the Deed of Hypothecation. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for recovery of money due under the Deed of Hypothecation. The Revision Petitioners/ Defendants 6 and 7 were set exparte. As against the other Defendants, after full trial, the Suit was decreed on 05-02-2002. b) I.A.No. 6 of 2003:- The Revision Petitioners/ Defendants 6 and 7 have filed this Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, requesting to condone the delay of 242 days in filing the Application under Or.9 R.13 C.P.C. The Revision Petitioners have alleged that the decree was passed against them exparte. b) I.A.No. 6 of 2003:- The Revision Petitioners/ Defendants 6 and 7 have filed this Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, requesting to condone the delay of 242 days in filing the Application under Or.9 R.13 C.P.C. The Revision Petitioners have alleged that the decree was passed against them exparte. According to the Revision Petitioners, they have received notices from the Respondent-Corporation/Plaintiff on 30-10-2002 and 7-11-2002, claiming the decree amount in the Suit and the Revision Petitioners were not aware of the Suit proceedings. Only after receiving the notice on 30-10-2002, they had knowledge about the proceedings. It is further alleged that on receipt of notice, the Revision Petitioners/Defendants have contacted their Counsel and came to know about the exparte decree and filed the Application to set aside the exparte decree within 30 days and there is a delay of 242 days in filing the same. The delay is neither wanton nor wilful and hence, the Revision Petitioners seek to condone the delay of 242 days. c) The Plaintiff-Corporation resisted the Application contending that the Revision Petitioners were served even in the Suit stage and that the statement that the Defendants had knowledge about the Suit only on 30-10-2002, is incorrect. In any event, the inordinate delay of 242 days cannot be condoned. d) Upon consideration of the contention of both the parties, the learned Fast Track Judge No.I, has dismissed the Application finding that the Defendants were set exparte even as early as on 23-06-1998. When the Suit was posted for recording the exparte evidence on 8-7-1998, on the Application filed by the Defendants 1 to 3, the exparte order passed against them was set aside and they have filed their Written Statement. Pointing out that the parties have adduced evidence and that the Suit had been decreed after full trial on 5-2-2002, the learned Fast Track Judge No.I has held that the Judgement was passed after full contest and that the same cannot be termed as an exparte decree and hence, it is not open to the Revision Petitioners/Defendants 6 and 7 in urging to set aside the same. 3. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Revision Petitioners/Defendants 6 and 7, have preferred this Revision. 3. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Revision Petitioners/Defendants 6 and 7, have preferred this Revision. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has contended that the Revision Petitioners were minors at the time when the loan transaction was entered into between the First Defendant-Firm and the Respondent-Corporation and that no liability could be fastened on them. Submitting that the Revision Petitioners came to know about the Court proceedings only after receipt of the notices from the Plaintiff-Corporation dated 30-10-2002 and 7-11-2002, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has contended that the Revision Petitioners ought to be given an opportunity to putforth their defence plea. 4. First Respondent -- The Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited is represented by the Counsel. 5. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that the averments in the affidavit are incorrect and unsustainable. The Revision Petitioners have been served with the Suit notice even in 1998. All the Defendants 1 to 7 have entered appearance through their Counsel. For the non-filing of the Written Statement, they have been set exparte on 23-06-1998. Thereafter, the case has been adjourned for recording the exparte evidence on 8-7-1998. At that stage, the Defendants 1 to 3 have filed the Application to set aside the exparte order passed against them and they have also filed their Written Statement. On that Application, the exparte order passed against the Defendants 1 to 3 had been set aside. Since, the Defendants 1 to 3 have filed their Written Statement, on the pleadings the parties went on trial. The Defendants 1 to 3 have not adduced any oral evidence. After full trial and upon hearing both the parties, the Judgement was delivered on 5-2-2002. When the Judgement was pronounced after full trial, it is not open to the Defendants 6 and 7 to contend that the Judgement and Decree are exparte. The averments in the affidavit are baseless and unfounded. 6. The Application in I.A.No. 6 of 2003 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 242 days in filing the Application under Or.9 R.13 C.P.C. This Application has been filed on the premise that the Revision Petitioners had knowledge of the Suit proceedings only on 30-10-2002, when they received notice claiming the decree amount. This contention of the Revision Petitioners is false, since, they have already entered appearance in the Suit stage. The Provision of Or.9 R.13 C.P.C. envisages two different situations. It provides for setting aside the exparte decree –- (i) where summons have not been duly served on the Defendant (or) (ii) where, he is prevented by any sufficient cause from appearance when the Suit is taken up for hearing. On failure to substantiate the above two grounds, the Court has no jurisdiction to set aside an exparte decree. 7. The case in hand does not fall under the first instance, since, the Revision Petitioners have already been served with the Suit summons and they have also entered appearance. The Defendants have not shown any sufficient cause for their non-appearance, either on 23-06-1998 or on the subsequent dates. Hence, the trial Court has rightly declined to condone the delay. The learned Fast Track Judge No.I, has rightly taken note of the suit proceedings and the stage in which the Application was filed and the knowledge of the Revision Petitioners of the suit proceedings. The impugned Order does not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference. This Revision has no merits and the same is bound to fail. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Judge No.I, Coimbatore, made in I.A.No.6 of 2003 in O.S.No.103 of 2001 dated 25-2-2003, is confirmed and this Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No. 5185 of 2003 is also dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.