IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 47 of 2004() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2703/03 IN OS.99/2000 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- SHAKKEELA D/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, MANNERIKANDI HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. RAGHUTHAMAN, S/O. KAKKARAYIL, KUNHIKKANNAM, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. KUNIYIL ABOOBACKER, S/O.MAMMEDKOYA, ELATHUR AMSOM, PUTHUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD FOR R1 SRI.D.NARENDRANATH FOR R1 SRI.M.HARISHARMA FOR R1 SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. 47 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is an appeal against the order passed in I.A. 2703/2003 in O.S. 99/2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. That was an application seeking to set aside the exparte decree passed against the second defendant . Since there was some delay in filing the said application, I.A. 2702/2003 was preferred seeking condonation of such delay. The delay extended for a period of two years and one month. According to the petitioner, she was bed ridden with paralysis and hence she could not appear before the court. This was disputed by the respondent. Evidence in the application consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and RW.1. and Exts.A1 and B1 to B4. After analysing the evidence in the case, the court below held that the petitioner/appellant did not prove the reason stated in the affidavit for the inordinate delay in preferring the application for setting aside the exparte decree and accordingly, the application was dismissed against which this appeal is preferred. F.A.O. 47/2004 :2: 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the matter has been settled between the parties and the grievance of the plaintiff has been redressed. This submission is recorded and the appeal is closed as infructuous. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-