JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Balaji and Chhangu instituted O.S. No. 242 of 2006 against Nand Varsayan and four others. Petitioner Ram Pyari was defendant No. 4 in the suit. The suit was decreed ex parte on 25.3.2008 by Civil Judge (S.D.) Azamgarh. Petitioner filed restoration application alongwith delay condonation application on 30.8.2008. Civil Judge (S.D.) Azamgarh rejected the delay condonation application as well as restoration application through order dated 3.9.2011. 3. Against the said order petitioner filed misc. civil appeal No. 124 of 2011 A.D.J. Court No. 8, Azamgarh dismissed the appeal on 29.5.2012, hence this writ petition. 4. Restoration application had been filed after five months and five days. The Courts below took an ultra technical view of the matter. Before decreeing the suit ex parte, the service was deemed sufficient as it was shown that petitioner had refused to accept the registered notice. 5. In the plaint it was stated that plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were joint owners/bhoomidhars of the property in dispute. Petitioner claims herself to be widow of Balroop which fact is denied by the plaintiff. Balroop was joint owner with plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3. It was stated in the plaint that Balroop contacted only one marriage with Ramdei and both Balroop and Ramdei had died. Wild allegation against the chastity of petitioner Ram Pyari was levelled. In such a situation it was almost impossible for the petitioner to ignore the suit. 6. The supreme Court in M.K. Prasad v. P Arumugam, AIR 2001 SC 2497 , has held that while deciding restoration application and delay condonation application filed therein Court should keep in mind the nature of the ex parte judgment, extent of property involved and stake of the parties. In the said case supreme Court condoned delay of one and half years in filing restoration application. In Collector v. Katji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 , it has been held that in restoration and delay condonation matters too technical view shall not be taken. In the instant case delay was not inordinate. 7. The supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of 2001 and in several other authorities including V.K. Industries v. M.P. Electricity Board, Rampur, AIR 2002 SC 1151 , has held that while setting aside ex parte decree reasonable condition of deposit etc. may be made. In the instant case delay was not inordinate. 7. The supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of 2001 and in several other authorities including V.K. Industries v. M.P. Electricity Board, Rampur, AIR 2002 SC 1151 , has held that while setting aside ex parte decree reasonable condition of deposit etc. may be made. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed impugned judgments and orders are set aside, restoration application of the petitioner is allowed ex parte judgment and decree dated 25.3.2008 is set aside and O.S. No. 242 of 2006 Baljeet and another v. Nand Varsayan and others, is restored. However, it is directed that until decision of the suit no party shall alienate the property in dispute or any part thereof. 9. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 3.7.2013. The trial Court after ensuring presence of or service upon all others defendants shall decide the suit very expeditiously. —————