JUDGMENT : 1. This is an Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging common order dated 29.10.2021 in I.A.Nos.1258/2019 and 1259/2019 in O.S.No.795/2012 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the above suit. 3. Though notice served to the respondent, the respondent not appeared. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an ex-parte decree was passed in this matter on 18.01.2013. Thereafter, decree put in execution. The matter went up to sale. Thereafter, defendant filed these petitions to set aside the ex-parte decree with prayer to condone delay of 1946 days. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the observation of the learned Sub Judge in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. On perusal of the recitals therein, it is discernible that the learned Sub Judge categorically observed that the huge delay of 1945 days not actually explained. However, with intention to afford an opportunity to both parties to contest the matter on merits, the learned Sub Judge allowed both petitions on payment of cost of Rs.7,000/-. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that thereafter also the petitioner was reluctant to co-operate with the trial and again the suit was set ex-parte and another petition filed to set aside the ex-parte order. Coming to the legality of the order, it is the settled law that delay can be condoned on sufficient reasons, if sufficient reasons established to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Similarly, it is the trite law that delay can be condoned by exercising discretion of the court in the given facts of a particular case. Here, as per the order impugned, the learned Sub Judge found that delay not properly explained. However, the petitions were allowed, presumably, by exercising power of discretion. When the delay is long and the same would cause prejudice to other side, discretion shall not be exercised in a light manner. Thus, it appears that the learned Sub Judge exercised his discretion in this matter without resorting to the grievance of the plaintiff, who moved steps till sale of the property based on the ex-parte decree, in thirst of enjoying the fruits of the said decree. Thus, it appears that the learned Sub Judge exercised his discretion in this matter without resorting to the grievance of the plaintiff, who moved steps till sale of the property based on the ex-parte decree, in thirst of enjoying the fruits of the said decree. In view of the matter, I am of the view that the order impugned is not liable to sustain. Therefore, the common order impugned shall stand set aside. Resultantly, the ex-parte decree dated 18.01.2013 shall be in force for executing further. Accordingly, this Original Petition is allowed.