Fraud must be challenged promptly; undue delay in seeking relief undermines claims.

JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed challenging Exts.P6 and P8 orders. Ext.P6 is the order dated 20.09.2012 in IA.No.4854 of 2010 in OS.No.2599 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram and Ext.P8 is the order dated 10.07.2017 in CMA No.15 of 2013 by the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The limited facts required for disposal of the original petition are as follows;

2. The petitioner was the additional 6^th defendant in OS.No.2599 of 1992 before the Second Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The suit was one for redemption of a mortgage and the petitioner is a person who had purchased 5 cents of land from a subsequent transferee under a sub mortgagee. The petitioner claims to have constructed a residential house after obtaining a loan and that she was living with her husband and daughters in the said building. The total extent of the mortgaged property was 44 cents. The suit was decreed and final decree proceedings were initiated. It is not disputed that the petitioner had been served notice in all these proceedings. Subsequently, delivery was also effected in 2003. It would appear from the records that the suit was decreed after a full-fledged trial. The petitioner had remained ex parte and the 1^st and 2^nd defendants had contested the suit. It is also evident that the petitioner had participated in the final decree proceedings and filed objections. The objection that has been filed is to the effect that the properties which the petitioner holds are not the subject matter of the mortgage and are self acquired properties of her transferor. The decree holder filed Execution Petition in which also the petitioner had been served notice. The petitioner chose to remain ex parte. After delivery was effected, the petitioner preferred an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2003 itself. The said application was dismissed. On 19.01.2005, the petitioner filed O.S.No.96 of 2005 for declaration of her title over the 5 cents of land and for setting aside the delivery proceedings in the suit at hand. Three years later, on 03.10.2008, the petitioner had sought to withdraw the suit and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.10.2008. The request for withdrawing the suit was made on the reason that the petitioner’s remedy was to file an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner thereafter filed EA.No.889 of 2008 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Much thereafter on 12.07.2010, the petitioner filed IA.No.4854 of 2010 and IA.No.4855 of 2010. IA.No.4854 of 2010 is an application for condoning the delay of 5359 days in preferring IA.No.4855 of 2010. IA.No.4855 of 2010 is an application to set aside the ex parte decree against the petitioner.

3. By Ext.P6 order, I.A.No.4854 of 2010 was dismissed by the court below after recording evidence and hearing. Ext.P6 would show that the trial court considered the contentions of the petitioner that the delay had occurred due to wrong legal advise, and, rejected the same.

4. Exhibit P6 order was challenged by the petitioner in CMA No.15 of 2013 before the Additional District Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. By Exhibit P8 order dated 10.07.2017, the Additional District Court-II has dismissed the appeal. The petitioner had contended in the appeal that an application for setting aside an ex parte decree and for condonation of delay in filing the application should be considered liberally. It was contended that the length of delay is immaterial and even if there are l