Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. Application no.11039 of 2017 is filed to condone the delay of 442 days in filing this appeal.

2. Sri S.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that, while Suit No.322 of 2010 was filed on 24.09.2010, the said suit was decreed on 22.03.2011 even without notice, in the said suit, being served on the appellant; the appellant came to know of the ex-parte decree when the respondent had filed Criminal Revision No.3769 of 2012 before the Calcutta High Court to have the charges, levelled against them, quashed; a copy of the ex-parte decree was enclosed along with the petition, in Criminal Revision No. 3769 of 2012, which was served on the appellant at her present address of her parents at Burdwan on 11.12.2012; she came to know about the said order only then; both the Section 5 application, and the application filed by her under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, on 04.01.2013, less than a month after she came to know of the ex-parte decree being passed, was dismissed by the court below by its order dated 16.05.2016, even though the requirement of Order 5 Rule 20 C.P.C. had not been complied with by the respondent, before direc