specifically stated that only at the request of the counsel appearing for the petitioner / judgment-debtor for filing vakalath, the matter was adjourned to 01.12.2008, however, there was no vakalath filed, hence the Execution Petition was allowed. It is not the case of the petitioner / judgment-debtor that there was no service of notice in the suit or in the E.P and further, on 05.01.2009, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the exparte order passed in the E.P and that was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.500/-, however, the conditional order was not complied with. Again the petitioner / judgment-debtor was set exparte, as counter was not filed and she was also called absent. Hence, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the exparte order, dated 30.04.2009. Similarly, it is not in dispute that the respondents, pursuant to the exparte decree, had deposited balance of sale consideration, Rs.40,000/- before the trial court and as per the order passed by the Execution Court in the E.P, the respondents have produced Non-Judicial Stamp papers on 22.01.2009 for drafting the sale deed. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner as defendant / judgment-debtor discussed by the Court below would show that there was no bonafide reason available in favour of the petitioner / judgment-debtor / defendant, but she is adopting only delay tactics at various stages, in order to protract the matter.
