IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 323 of 2011(O) ------------------------ CMA.58/2010 OF III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.362/2003 OF ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- AJITHA RAJENDRAN, VILAYIL VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHYLAJA, KAKKIDIYIL, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM-691 010. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.(C).No.323 of 2011 O ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S.No.362 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Kollam, against whom an ex-parte decree was passed on 26.10.2005, filed application to set aside the ex-parte decree on 5.3.2010. The trial court dismissed the applications. On appeal, the appellate court confirmed that order. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent for realisation of a sum of ` 1,17,000/- on the basis of an agreement. The suit was filed on 20.9.2003. The first posting of the case was on 2.12.2003. The defendant entered appearance and prayed for granting time for filing written statement. The suit was posted for filing written statement on 26.3.2004. It was adjourned to 24.7.2004. The defendant did not file any written statement. She was set ex-parte on 24.7.2004. Thereafter, O.P.(C) No.323/2011 2 an ex-parte decree was passed on 26.10.2005. When execution proceedings were initiated, the defendant filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree on 5.3.2010. There was a delay 1561 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The only reason stated by the petitioner/defendant for condoning the delay was that from 2004 onwards, she was laid up due to rheumatism and therefore, she could not contact the counsel and file the written statement. No medical certificate was produced. The petitioner was not examined also. There was no evidence before the court below to accept the case of the petitioner. No grounds were made out to condone the delay. The courts below rightly dismissed the applications and the appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, the Original Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl O.P.(C) No.323/2011 3