applicant. In the present case, the applicant has not produced any oral or documentary evidence to show that he followed up with the erstwhile counsel. Similarly, no correspondence, no affidavit from the previous counsel and no records are filed to substantiate the allegation made against the previous counsel. It is seen from the records that the applications in A.D.No.81495 and 81496 of 2023 were filed on 26.06.2023 and the same were returned on 11.07.2023 with a time limit of 30 days to represent the same and on perusal of the affidavit filed by the applicant / 5th defendant himself it is seen that he has remained quiet for 1 ½ years after filing of the applications and no satisfactory reason given by the applicant as to why he remained quiet for 1 ½ years. The applicant's act of remaining completely inactive for nearly 1 ½ years without representing the applications in A.D.Nos.81495 and 81496 of 2023, offering only a vague and bald allegation of counsel's negligence is wholly unsatisfactory and not convincing, that too in this case where already the applicant has filed A.D.No.81495 of 2023 to condone the delay of 799 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte Judgment and decree dated 19.03.2021. As rightly pointed out, by the learned counsel for the respnodents 1 and 2 the litigant cannot take shelter behind the alleged fault of the counsel without himself exhibiting due diligence. Vague allegations against the advocate, unsupported by material, cannot cosntitute sufficient cause. From the averments made out in the affidavit filed by the applicant in support of the applications, it is clear that the applicant is not following his case properly from the beginning itself. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of opinion that the Court cannot condone
