JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan.J The application to set aside the ex parte decree, accompanied with an application seeking condonation of the delay of 386 days, were dismissed by the trial court. The second defendant-applicant is in the appeal.

2. The suit is one for setting aside the sale deed executed by defendants 1 and 2 and for recovery of money from the first defendant.

3.The plaintiff is the sister of the first defendant.

According to the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff stood as a guarantor for a chitty transaction subscribed to by the first defendant. As the first defendant defaulted in repayment, the plaintiff was compelled to discharge the liability. In the suit, the plaintiff claims recovery of the said amount from the first defendant. The first defendant had alienated his property in favour of the second defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff also seeks to set aside the sale deed.

4. The suit was decreed ex parte on 19.08.2023. It is not in dispute that summons in the suit was served by substituted service. According to the applicant, she came to know about the decree only on 23.09.2024 upon receipt of notice in the execution petition. It is contended that the applicant was suf