JUDGMENT

Joseph, J.

The appellants are defendants 2 to 5 in a suit for money. The suit was decreed ex parte. They filed I.A.No.2071 of 2008 to set aside the ex pare order. There was a delay in filing the application. Therefore, they filed another application to condone the delay.

2. When the application to condone the delay came up, it was dismissed. The court took note of the fact that there was no medical certificate to prove the alleged medical condition, which prevented the appearance of the party before court. Secondly, the court also took note of the fact that neither the party nor the counsel were present when the case was called. Therefore the application to condone the delay was dismissed. Consequently I.A. 2071 of 2008, to set aside the ex parte order was also dismissed.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that they have meritorious contentions in the suit and it was because the parties were living scattered that they could not file the application in time. The person, who filed the affidavit, was conducting the case on behalf of the others.

5. T