Judgment 1. The 2nd defendant is the revision petitioner herein. 2. She filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, along with an application to condone the delay of 850 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed by the court below. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 3. According the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the proceedings between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was a clandestine one and therefore, there are justifiable grounds to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the delay. 4. A perusal of the records would go to show that the 2nd defendant has adopted the written statement filed by the 1st defendant and therefore, the contention that the proceedings are collusive between the first defendant and the plaintiff cannot be accepted. The court below has considered the reasons stated for filing the application belatedly. The court below has made an observation that as early as on 20.8.2010, the 1st defendant had filed the written statement, which had been adopted by the 2nd defendant/revision petitioner. 5. When P.W.1 was examined, at the request of the petitioner, there had been several adjournments and later on, the counsel had reported no instructions and only at that stage, the preliminary decree had been passed. 6. The conduct of the 2nd defendant/revision petitioner would clearly go to show that the revision petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence and also there were no justifiable grounds for condonation of delay. The delay seems to be willful and deliberately made with a view to protract the proceedings. Therefore, the order passed by the court below did not require any interference. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. No costs. M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.