JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - This petition has been filed to review the Judgment dated 12.10.2007 passed by this Court in RSA No. 85 of 2006 dismissing the appeal at the stage of admission. 2. The main contention of the Petitioners in this review petition is that they are Defendant Nos. 2, 6, 10 and 11 in the Court below and filed their written statement representing the Managing Committee of the Institution. In their written statement, they challenged the maintainability of the suit as well as the plaint assertions. The said Defendants also filed an application for amendment of the written statement before commencement of hearing of the suit. The said amendment was rejected by the trial Court on the ground of delay. Thereafter they did not contest the suit. On the date fixed for hearing, Defendants 21 and 22 who are supporting Defendant Nos. 2, 6, 10 and 11 cross-examined the Plaintiffs' witnesses and the trial Court proceeded with the hearing. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded under Order 17, Rule 2 of the CPC and passed the Judgment and decree. Said Defendants challenged the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in RFA No. 50/24 of 2005/2004 which was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the main intention of Defendants 2, 6, 10 and 11 is to delay the matter and not to proceed with the hearing of the suit. Since the contesting Defendants 21 and 22 cross-examined Plaintiffs' witnesses and Plaintiff participated in the hearing and Defendants 2, 6, 10 and 11 intentionally avoided to contest the suit, the trial Court proceeded with the suit and heard it on merits thereby it committed no illegality. Defendants 2, 6, 10 and 11 Appellants being aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, filed the second appeal before this Court mainly contending that since they did not contest the suit, the trial Court should have passed an ex parte decree and should not have passed a decree on contest against them. In the second appeal, this Court found that both the Courts below concurrently found that the Defendants were intentionally avoiding to contest the suit and there was no sufficient ground for such avoidance. In the second appeal, this Court found that both the Courts below concurrently found that the Defendants were intentionally avoiding to contest the suit and there was no sufficient ground for such avoidance. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the records and as there was no substantial question of law involved in this appeal, this Court dismissed the second appeal. Being aggrieved the Petitioners have filed this review petition stating that the Explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 of the CPC shows that the trial Court can dispose of any appeal on merits when the Defendants have not given any evidence or substantial evidence or withdrew from the case after refusal of their application for amendment. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has relied on a decision of the apex Court in the case of B. Janakiramaiah Chetty Vs. A.K. Parthasarthi and Others, wherein it has been held that the proper course to proceed with the suit by the Trial Court is to set the Defendant ex parte under Order 17, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. But in the present case, since the Defendants 2, 6, 10 and 11 had filed their written statement and intentionally avoided to participate in the hearing of the suit and tried to delay the matter in spite of several opportunities given to them to proceed with the hearing, they stood on a different footing and for their own laches and wrong they should not be rewarded. Since the Petitioners had an alternative remedy and they had not been debarred from availing the same, the trial Court rightly proceeded with the suit on merits. This Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case did not admit the appeal and since then the Defendants unnecessarily wasting the valuable times of the Court and trying to abuse the process of Court, the Court has no sympathy to such persons and as such this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record to review the Petitioners' case as it is not coming under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the review petition which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed