people and also in cases where valuable rights in the property are involved. The inconsistency between July, 2009 and August, 2009 will not make it so wide to defeat the claim of the petitioner about the reasons given by her. The conduct of the defendant cannot be said to be blemishable since she has filed another suit for injunction and prosecuting the same and did not allow to be dismissed for default. If really the laches are to be attributed to the defendant, then she would not also have shown interest in the injunction suit. Therefore, the explanation given by the defendant appears to be reasonable. In fact, there is no advantage gained by the defendant by suffering an exparte decree when her suit for permanent injunction pending. Therefore, evidently the advantage, which is sought to be conveyed, is only for the plaintiff. In opposing the application for condonation of the delay the lower Court has given sufficient reasons and keeping in view the interest of the parties and also rights involved and also the illiteracy of the defendant, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court, more so when the exparte decree is also said to have been set aside in consequent of this order.
