PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE trial Court granted decree on 28.08.1998 against the petitioner. The suit was for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted application for setting aside of the exparte decree on 01.06.1999. According to the petitioner, she came to know about the impugned decree when he received message from Laxman on telephone at Mumbai on 23.03.1999. Since at that time, the petitioner was sick, therefore, she could not come to Sirohi from Mumbai and she could reach Sirohi on 19.05.1999 and thereafter, submitted the said application. According to the petitioner, a registered notice was sent to the petitioner but on that notice, a wrong address was given. It is also submitted that the notice sent by ordinary post did not return back. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted an application for condonation of delay also supported by affidavit.
(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application for condonation of delay as well as application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC vide impugned order dt. 27.11.2002. Against this order, the petitioner preferred appeal which too was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dt. 28.08.2004.;