8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents submitted that, even though many opportunities were given to the defendant, he has not appeared for enquiry before the Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the defendant has not produced any proof to show that he was confined to bed from 05.04.2012 till 16.07.2012, even if so, the delay between 16.07.2012 till filing of the applications on 26.07.2012 has not been explained. The learned counsel further submitted that, though the Family Court insisted for the appearance of the defendant on several occasions, and also passed an order to that effect, which was also confirmed by the High Court, the defendant failed to appear before the Family Court and allowed the suit to be decreed ex parte . Thereafter, the condone delay petition filed by the defendant to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed for default. Further, the petitions for restoration and condonation of delay also were dismissed for default. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the defendant is not interested in prosecuting the matter and prayed for dismissal of the present revision petitions.
