paragraph 4 and 5 of the affidavit in support of the Motion, the Second Petitioner as deponent stated that the First Petitioner “was not keeping well since about 2005”. The Second Petitioner stated that she was a senior citizen, aged about 65 and was not keeping well herself. Further more, it was urged, that on or about 13th October 2007, the Respondent started carrying out certain work in the property in question and that when enquiries were made with the Respondent, he informed her that a Court order had been passed in his favour. The Second Petitioner stated that she immediately contacted her previous Advocate who informed her that he had not attended the petition and it might have been disposed of. During the course of the hearing, this Court has been informed that even the motion for restoration was, as a matter of fact, dismissed by this Court. However, the contention of the Petitioner is that the averments which were made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit in support of the Motion for condonation were false. A reply has been filed in these proceedings by the Second Petitioner and denying that she has made false averments in support of the motion for condonation.
