a suit filed by the present revision petitioner is pending as OS.No.l207/02 before the Sub Court, Palakkad. The above suit is now ordered to be tried jointly with the suit ordered to be restored by the order impugned in the revision. Perusing the judgment passed by the court below, it appears, the pendency of the suit filed by the present petitioner weighed with the court in forming a conclusion that the suit, which was dismissed for default, can also be restored as the parties are the same and there was also some identity with respect to the subject matter of the suit. The question whether the plaintiff had sufficient cause for condoning the delay which was found against by the trial court in the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was not seriously considered by the Appellate Judge. Other than stating that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause for filing the application in time, the court has not stated the reason to take such a view. So much so, prima facie, it would appear that the view so taken is not supported by reason. However, taking note that the two suits are now ordered to be jointly tried, in my view, interests of justice would be met if the plaintiffs are directed to compensate the injury caused to the
