K.T.Sankaran, J.
The appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment debtor. The respondent is the decree holder. The respondent filed O.S.No.9 of 2001 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla, against the predecessor-in- interest of the appellants for realisation of money. That suit was decreed ex-parte on 24.3.2003. The defendant in the suit, namely, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed I.A.No.499 of 2005 to set aside the ex-parte decree. After taking evidence, the trial court dismissed that application by the order dated 31.3.2006. Thereafter, the decree holder filed Execution Petition for realisation of more than ₹12 lakhs due to the decree holder.
2. The present application, namely, I.A.No.29 of 2012 along with an application for condonation of delay was filed on 27.12.2011 by the appellants, who are the legal representatives of the original defendant. The appellants stated in that application that they came to know of the decree only on 14.7.2010. Still they filed the application after the expiry of more than one year. The court below held that the present application is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of I.A.No.499 of 2005 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. The court below held that there is no explanation for the long delay which occurred even after the appellants came to know of the decree.
3. The finding of the court below that the present application to set aside the ex-parte decree, at the instance of the appellants, who are the legal representatives of the original defendant was not maintainable, on the ground that the application filed by the original defendant to set aside the ex- parte decree was dismissed, is perfectly legal and proper. On facts also, there is no proper explanation for the long delay in filing the application. The court below was justified in dismissing the applications. No interference is called for. The F.A.O. is accordingly dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl P.D.RAJAN JUDGE