Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. The absolute need and imperative requirement for implicit care and prudence to be employed by Banks and financial institutions while sanctioning loans and executing security documents have been restated by courts including our courts several times before. In spite of this, it is distressing that we come across cases where, purely on account of oversight or on account of deliberate design - which points suspiciously to the banks and its officials, sometimes litigations are set in motion with respect to loans and creation of security interest on the allegation that they have been done with malafides employing confutative and questionable means.

2. The case that we see here and the facts presented are virtually a text book example of what we have just said now. This is a case where the appellant alleges that her signatures were forged and security interest created against her name, even though she was not involved in the transaction at all. The modus operandi, which she alleges is employed in this case, is asserted to have been conceived by her brother, who is arrayed as a defendant in the suit who, according to the appellant, had created a power of attorney shown to be executed by her in his name and then availed of a loan from the bank by executing security documents, including guarantees and equitable mortgage of the property in her name. This led to the bank obtaining an ex parte decree against her and then proceeding against her property, in execution proceedings, alleged to be the secured asset and bringing it to sale, which she says she was not aware at all for a long time thereafter. According to the appellant, on being aware of all this, she filed an application before the court below praying that the ex parte decree against her be set aside along with another application to have the delay of more than 10 years in filing it condoned, on the averment that she was not aware of the various proceedings against her and on the singular ground that she was not served with the summons by the court below in the suit before it was decreed.

3. The compendious facts that led to this appeal is that the appellant who is stated to be residing in Bombay became aware that her property, comprised of 50.60 Ares in Re.Sy No.6/4 in Block No.14 (Sy.No.30/5), had been purchased by the Federal Bank of India, the first respondent herein, under a court sale on the strength of a decree that they had obtained against her. The appellant alleges that it was only on 10.8.2013, when her husband came to Kerala for some other reason that she came to know that her property had been sold. On being so aware, she says she made enquiries to find that the bank had obtained a decree against her ex-parte, which is dated 21.1.2003. She says that on further enquiry she understood that the properties have been sold through a court auction and that it were purchased by the bank itself as early as in 2008. She says that, therefore, she was forced to file an application before the court below, numbered as I.A.No.1981 of 2013, to have the ex-parte decree set aside along with another application namely, I.A.No.1980 of 2013 praying that the delay of 10 years, one month and 20 days be condoned in filing the application to have the ex-parte decree set aside.

4. The court below permitted the appellant to lead evidence in the I.A., but eventually found, by the order impugned in this appeal, that she has not been able to show sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay for the large period of 10 years, one month and 20 days and therefore, consequentially dismissed the application for condonation of delay, namely I.A.No.1980 of 2013, leading to the dismissal of I.A.No.1981 of 2013 also. This order, which was issued by the court below on 29.11.2014 has been impugned by the appellant in this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. A.R. Dileep and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

6. Even thoug