A perusal of the order of the lower Court would show that it has considered the applications of the petitioner from a right perspective. The conduct of the petitioner shows utter lack of diligence on her part in contesting the suit. Despite being given an opportunity, she failed to file written statement and allowed the Court to set her ex parte. At least, on 07.06.2010, when the case was posted for the evidence of the plaintiff, no effort was made by the petitioner to get the order setting her ex parte set aside and also to participate in the trial. She allowed an ex parte decree to be passed and, as rightly observed by the lower Court, even thereafter, she has kept quiet without filing an application for setting aside the ex parte decree till the plaintiff has filed the execution petition. As rightly observed by the lower Court, even the alleged cardiac problem suffered by the petitioner had no relevance as the same pertained to the year 2008 while the relevant period was between 19.01.2010 and 31.05.2010. Thus, except the ipsi dixit of the petitioner that her ill-health prevented her from contesting the suit and filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, no evidence is adduced by her in support of her plea that she was prevented by sufficient cause from contesting the suit and filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree within the stipulated period of limitation. On a careful consideration of the reasons given by the Court
