Judgment

The petitioner was the third defendant in O.S.No.77 of 2003 on the file of Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery. Later, an application was filed as I.A.No.870/08 to set aside the ex parte order. That petition was filed under Order IX Rule 7 with a petition to condone the delay of 1811 days. Along with that petition another application, I.A.No.867/08, was also filed where his prayer was to permit him to file written statement in the said suit. One more application as I.A.No.868/08 was also filed in which the relief sought for is to declare him as the Power of Attorney Holder of defendants 1 and 2. All those petitions were dismissed as not pressed on 15.10.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those petitions happened to be not pressed because of a wrong advice. Later, the suit itself was decreed on 29.10.2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel that an application was subsequently filed by the petitioner (third defendant) in the suit to set aside the ex parte decree and that O.P.(Civil) 2344/2011 2 petition is now pending before the court below. The limited prayer in this petition is to direct the learned Sub Judge to dispose of that application. In the facts a