- (1.)THIS revision petition, by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 225 of 1983 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Hosdurg, has been filed against the common order dated 30-10-1993 passed in I.A. Nos. 631 and 632 of 1991 by which the ex parte decree passed against the respondent/defendant was set aside by condoning the delay in filing the petition under O.9 R.13 C.P.C.
(2.)PLAINTIFF is the husband of the defendant. He filed the suit on 19.9.1983 for a declaration that two items of properties in the plaint schedule and standing in the name of the defendant have been purchased benami in her name. The defendant was duly served with summons. Shri P. Appukuttan, Advocate was engaged by her. She filed the written statement on 20-6-1984. Issues were framed in due course. But, on 25.7.1985, when the suit was called on for hearing, counsel for the defendant reported ' no instructions'. The suit was then heard ex parte and ex parte decree was passed on that day.
On 3-6-1991, the defendant filed a petition under O.9 R.13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree. It was registered as I.A. No. 632 of 1991. On the same day, she also filed a petition under S.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The petition for condonation of delay has been registered as I.A. No 631 of 1991.

(3.)IN the petition filed under S.5 of the Limitation Act (I.A.631/ 91), it is stated that the defendant was not served with any summons in the suit. The decree was obtained fraudulently with the intention of depriving her of valuable property. The delay was due to the fact that she was completely in dark about the ex parte decree. There was no negligence or laches on her part. She will be put to irreparable loss and injury, if the ex parte decree is not set aside by condoning the delay.
;