Judgment :- This order shall govern the above two revision petitions. They have arisen from the two orders of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Chengam, made in two applications one in I.A.No.706/2006 to condone the delay of 547 days in making an application to set aside an ex-parte decree and the other in I.A.No.34 of 2007 to set aside that ex-parte decree. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel and also looking into the materials, both the revisions, in the considered opinion of this Court, do not carry any merit whatsoever. 4. It was a suit for declaration and for other reliefs. There are number of defendants, out of whom, the third defendant was the only person contesting the matter. Written statement was filed by him. Issues were framed. The matter was posted for trial on 23. 2005. On that day, the respondent/3rd defendant did not appear. An ex-parte decree came to be passed. In order to set it aside, an application was filed in I.A.No.34 of 2007. While doing so, there was a delay of 547 days. In order to condone the delay, an application in I.A.No.706/2006 was filed. Both the applications were taken up for consideration. As far as the delay excuse application was concerned, no counter was filed, and the lower Court considered the reasons therein and allowed that application. As regards the other application, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff has made an endorsement stating that notice may be sent to the party. The lower Court also took it as counter not filed and allowed that application also. Hence, these revisions have arisen at the instance of the plaintiff before this Court. 5. The only contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that in the instant case, there was no sufficient cause shown by the respondent herein, even assuming that there was no counter filed by the revision petitioner; that in the absence of sufficient cause, the lower Court should have dismissed the application, when there was a huge delay of 547 days; that as far as the other application to set aside the ex-parte decree was concerned, it was allowed even without notice to the party, and under the circumstances, both the revisions have got to be ordered by this Court by setting aside the orders of the Court below. 6. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and looked into the materials available. 7. It is true that the suit was contested by the third defendant. It came up for trial on 23. 2005. Due to the absence of the respondent/3rd defendant, he was set ex-parte, and an ex-parte decree came to be passed. There was an application filed to set aside the same. While doing so, there was a delay of 547 days, and an application was filed to condone that delay. Both the applications were filed only after notice to the Counsel for the plaintiff on record. As far as the delay condonation application was concerned, no counter was filed, and naturally, even if counter was not filed, the lower Court was called upon to look into the affidavit in support of the application and find out whether there is sufficiency of cause. At this juncture, there is no impediment for this Court to look into the affidavit. The affidavit would clearly reveal that the parties were close relations. Apart from that, there was a compromise which was going on between them, and believing the same, the third defendant was keeping quiet. Thereafter, he came to know that execution proceedings were initiated, pending the compromise. Under the circumstances, he gave instructions to his Counsel to file the applications. In view of the close relationship between the parties and also the reasons adduced, this Court is of the opinion that the delay was actually to be condoned. Accordingly, the lower Court has allowed that application. The revision petitioner herein, who was the plaintiff, though served with the notice through Counsel, has not even filed counter. Having failed to file counter before the Court below, now, the contentions put forth cannot be countenanced at all. 8. As far as the other application to set aside the ex-parte decree was concerned, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff though he was on record on that day, has made an endorsement stating that notice has got to be ordered to the party. Once the Counsel is on record, and so long as he does not report no instructions, he has to take notice, and he is to give responsible answer to the Court; but, he failed. Once the Counsel is on record, and so long as he does not report no instructions, he has to take notice, and he is to give responsible answer to the Court; but, he failed. Under the circumstances, the lower Court considered it proper to allow the application since it was convinced that it was a fit case where the ex-parte decree was to be set aside. This Court is unable to notice anything to disturb the orders of the Court below. Accordingly, they are sustained. Under the circumstances, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, both these civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.