Judgment : 1. The defendants are the revision petitioners herein. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking the relief of partition. The defendants received notice in the suit, but did not choose to file a written statement. Therefore, the defendants were set ex parte. 3. The defendants filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, along with an application in I.A.No.218 of 2013 to condone the delay of 6934 days. The trial court dismissed the said petition, as against which, the present revision has been filed. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the 1st defendant is an aged lady having no assistance at home and also because of the fact that there had been a decision to settle the matter in the Panchayat, she did not appear before the Court and therefore, the court below should have exercised its discretion and should have condoned the delay. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the court below would go to show that even while filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, no written statement had been filed by the defendants. 6. Even though the defendants received notice on 18.10.2012 in the application in IA No.1184 of 2012, even thereafter, the petition to set aside the ex parte decree had not been filed immediately, but only on 29.1.2013. The conduct of the defendants would go to show that they are interested only in protracting the proceedings and not in contesting the matter. The court below is justified in dismissing the petition, when the delay is unexplained and inordinate. Therefore, the well considered order passed by the court below did not require any interference. Accordingly, the CRP is rejected at the stage of admission itself. No costs. M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.