A party seeking to set aside an ex parte decree must provide sufficient reasons for their absence and explain any delay in filing the petition. A medical certificate alone is not sufficient to prove illness in the absence of oral evidence from the party.

1. Eighth defendant in O.S.No.192 of 1992 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai aggrieved against the order in I.A.No.109 of 1994 wherein the court below has dismissed his petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has approached this Court by way of the present revision.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.109 of 1994 the petitioner herein submitted that she came to know that an ex parte decree was passed against her on 29. 92 only on 20.11.93 through her present advocate. She further contended that for the last 30 years she is residing at Bangalore and 1982 onwards she was suffering from rheumatism and due to the said ailment she could not move freely. In those circumstance, she did not go over to Kuzhithurai to ascertain the position of the case. Only on 20.11.93 she came to know about the ex parte decree passed against her on 29. 92 through her present counsel and immediately she filed the present petition within 30 days which is from the date of her knowledge.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein wherein it is contended that the petitioner/8th defendant, plaintiff and defendants 7,9 and 10 are sisters. She is also a daughter of second plaintiff. It is also contended that in view of the close relationship, the 8th defendant was aware of the court proceedings. Even on merits they contended that 8th defendant has no defence. No oral evidence was let in by either side. The petitioner/8th defendant alone has filed a medical certificate dated 293. Inasmuch as the petitioner herein has not deposed before the court explaining the respondent/respondents for her absence, after accepting the case of the respondents, dismissed the said I.A.

4. Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had sufficient reasons for her absence and she has rightly filed the medical certificate with regard to her ailment. On the other hand, Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently contended that absolutely there is no merit in the present petition, since the petitioner was related to the plaintiff and other defendants, the allegation that she was not aware of the suit proceedings is utter false-hood. He also submits that in the absence of any explanation for non-examination production of medical certificate, may not be relied upon. He has also brought to my notice that all the other defendants were also set ex parte and they have not taken any step to set aside the same. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

5. It is seen that the suit was numbered on 4. 92 and summonses were issued returnable by 192. From 16. 92 the suit has been reposted to 19. 92. On that date D.1, D.3, D.4, D.5, D.6, D.7, D.9, and D.10 were called absent and set ex parte and fresh summonses were ordered to be issued to 2nd and 8th defendants through court and post returnable by 18. 92. On 18. 92 second defendant was called absent and the court below adjourned the suit to 19. 92. On that date, 8th defendant was called absent and she was set ex parte. Thereafter the court below adjourned the case to 29. 92 for ex parte evidence. On 29. 92 P.W-1 was examined. Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. Preliminary decree was passed as prayed for with costs.

6. On 12. 93 the petitioner, 8th defendant filed two applications, one is to set aside the ex parte decree which is numbered as I.A.No.110 of 1994 and the other is to condone the delay which is numbered as I.A.No.109 of 1994. In the delay condonation petition it is contended that the plaintiffs have no right in the suit property, 8th defendant alone has got equity of redemption under a will executed by her father in 1963. She also contended that the plaintiffs and other defendants colluded with each other and filed the suit. Further she averred that 8th defendant is residing in Bangalore for the last 30 years and she has been suffering from rheumatism.