Judgment : 1. The defendant is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The defendant filed applications to set aside the ex parte decree, along with an application to condone the delay of 872 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree and to grant stay of all further proceedings of the final decree. 2.1. The court below had chosen to dismiss all the applications, as against which, the present revisions are filed. 3. It is grievance of the revision petitioner that only because of the change of residence, he was not in a position to appear before the court below and hence the delay ought to have been condoned. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the court below would go to show that the defendant has filed the written statement even in the year 2003. There had been change of counsel frequently and three counsel have represented the defendant. When the case was posted for trial on 5.1.2011, there was no representation on behalf of the defendant and the Court had successively adjourned the matter for cross-examination of P.W.1. Having waited patiently for several hearings, finding no other alternative, the court below had to set the defendant ex parte only on 2.3.2011. Therefore, the court below is justified in not condoning the delay in filing the petition to set aside theex parte decree. There is no merit in the above CRPs and they are dismissed. No costs. M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2014 are closed.