“The averments of the petition show, matter was coming for cross of PW.1 from 21.09.2015 as last chance. As seen from the record, the chief examination of PW.1 was filed on 26.03.2015 and documents were marked on 04.06.2015. Thereafter, the matter underwent for several adjournments of PW.1due to non-readiness of defendant on 17.05.2015, 25.08.2015 and on 03.09.2015, 11.09.2015. Finally, this Court treated the cross-examination as ‘nil’ on 21.09.2015. That shows the petitioner has given several opportunities to cross-examine the witness. Even after gap of two months, judgment was pronounced. That shows the attitude of the petitioner, the petitioner intentionally wants to drag the matter by taking number of adjournments. This Court granted sufficient time to him from 04.06.2015 till 17.11.2015. The petitioner successfully dragged the matter by taking several adjournments. He waited till the decree is passed. He gave vague statements stating due to ill-health he could not contact his advocate. He did not mention what is the illhealth suffered by him. He did not file medical certificate to show his ill-health. His affidavit is very vague. He came up with present petition to drag the case and to cause delay to the decree holder to enjoy the fruits of the decree. There is no sufficient reason to condone the delay of 56 days. The petitioner failed to explain day to day delay. There are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner. There is no sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the decree.”
