JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.5.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Manipur in Judl. Misc. Case No.63 of 2014 rejecting an application filed u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning delay of 69 days in filing the application for setting aside an ex parte judgment and decree dt. 26.4.2015 passed in Mat.(Declaration) Suit No.43 of 2013. The appellant is the defendant in the suit. 2. The respondent filed the said suit for a declaration that she is the only legally married wife of deceased Oinam Ibohanbi Singh. After notice, the present appellant appeared in the suit by engaging a counsel and due to non appearance of the counsel for the present appellant, the suit proceeded ex parte and ultimately an ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 26.4.2014. 3. It is the case of the appellant that she came to know about the judgment and decree only on 30.7.2014 when she visited the office of the Director Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services and after coming to know about such ex parte judgment and decree, she contacted her counsel and came to know that the learned counsel engaged by her did not appear in the suit as a result of which the suit proceeded ex parte and ex parte decree was also passed. Coming to know such passing of the ex parte decree, she filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree and such application having not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, Judl. Misc. Case No.63 of 2014 was filed to condone the delay of 66 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The said application was resisted by the respondent on several grounds and the main ground was that the appellant did not keep track of the suit which was her responsibility and even after she came to know about the said ex parte decree, she did not take further steps and there was delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court came to the conclusion that there is delay of 69 days and not 66 days as indicated in the application for condonation of delay. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court came to the conclusion that there is delay of 69 days and not 66 days as indicated in the application for condonation of delay. It also found that though the appellant took a plea that she was engaged in the marriage of her son and also periodically visited to doctor for her health problem, such explanation given are not sufficient to condone the delay of 69 days. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, we find that after engaging a counsel the present appellant was given an impression that as and when her presence shall be required by the Court, she would be intimated. However, the learned counsel engaged by her to conduct the case before the learned Judge, Family Court did not appear in the suit and also did not send any information to the appellant regarding his non appearance. As a result of such conduct of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before the learned Judge, Family Court, the appellant was set at ex parte and ex parte decree was passed. The law is well settled that for the fault of the counsel, a party to the litigation should not suffer. This is a clear case where the appellant had taken all steps to contest the suit by engaging a counsel, but the learned counsel appearing for her did not take step for appearing before the Court. 6. We, therefore, are of the view that the delay of 69 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree should be condoned in the interest of justice. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and condone the delay of 69 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand)only to the respondent before the trial Court within 6(six) weeks from today.