Judgment : The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.192 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Chengalpattu. The suit was decreed ex parte on 24. 1993. The second defendant in the suit, the respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.1132 of 1994 to condone the delay of 198 days in filing the application under O.9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte order. 2.. The respondent has stated in the affidavit that she engaged a lawyer to defend the suit. He was getting time for filing the written statement. Meanwhile, the first defendant, died and the legal heirs were added as defendants. The suit was adjourned from time to time and ultimately the ex parte decree was passed on 24. 1993, since no written statement was filed. The non-filing of the written statement in neither wilful nor wanton but due to the bona fide reasons. The respondent further stated in the affidavit that the petition to set aside the ex parte order could not be filed in time and there is a delay of 198 days in filing the said petition. The said delay is neither wilful nor wanton and the respondent is an aged person and was suffering from various illnesses i.e., typhoid and jaundice during the relevant days. She also sustained a leg injury and underwent continuous treatment and as such she could not meet the counsel for filing the written statement as well as filing the application under O.9, Rule 13, C.P.C. 3. The petitioner herein has filed counter stating that the respondent has entered appearance in the suit during the year 1990 and no written statement was filed till the date of ex parte decree. Even at the time of filing of the application to condone delay in filing the petition under O.9, Rule 13, C.P.C. the respondent did not file the written statement as on such there is no bona fide in the application. The petitioner herein further contended that the allegation in the affidavit are cock and bull story and they are invented for the purpose of filing the application. The allegations that the respondent was suffering from various aliments and sustained leg injury are denied. 4. For the reasons stated in the above pleadings, the lower court alleged the application by awarding the cost of Rs.75. The allegations that the respondent was suffering from various aliments and sustained leg injury are denied. 4. For the reasons stated in the above pleadings, the lower court alleged the application by awarding the cost of Rs.75. The Order of the lower court is as follows: A perusal of the order of the lower court clearly establishes that the same cannot be sustained. When the respondent has filed the application to condone delay of 198 days stating that she was not well and she was suffering from typhoid and jaundice and also leg injury, she had not produced any medical evidence before the lower court to establish her case, especially when the statement in the affidavit is denied by the petitioner in their counter-affidavit. Further the respondent has not gone to the box for the purpose of examination and to establish her case of illness. It has been repeatedly held by this Court, the Judgment reported in Sri Pillaiyarpatti Karpaga Vinayagar Koil Nagarathar Trust v. R.M. Sevugarn Chettiar, (1996)1 C.T.C. 717 , that “it has been repeatedly held by this Court that ex parte decrees cannot be set aside on vague allegations that the defendant was ill. It is for the defendant to prove that he was so ill on the particular day that he could not attend court. Until then, it could not be said that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance. Without proving the sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the court, no person can claim to have the ex parte decree set aside. In this connection, the ruling of this Court in Arukkani Ammal v. Guruswamy, (1987)1 M.L.J. 32 :100 L.W. 707 can be looked into. The learned Chief Justice has laid down the proposition that ex parte decrees cannot be set aside on value allegations of illness.” It is incumbent on the respondent to get into the box and examine herself as a witness. In this case, the respondent, who filed the application for condoning the delay of 198 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, has not chosen to get into box and moreover has not produced any material evidence to establish her case. Merely on the ground of generosity the lower court had exercised its discretion and allowed the application which cannot be said to be correct exercise of judicial discretion. Merely on the ground of generosity the lower court had exercised its discretion and allowed the application which cannot be said to be correct exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, the order of the lower court is set aside. This civil revision petition is allowed. 5. Even though the respondent was served through the lower court advocate as early as 22. 1996 she has not chosen to appear before this Court and this Court is taking into consideration of this conduct of the respondent also in allowing this petition.