JUDGMENT : (Viju Abraham, J.) The above original petition is filed seeking to set aside Ext.P14 judgment dated 8.12.2021 in CMA No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Addl. District Court-III, Alappuzha. 2. Petitioner herein is the additional 4th appellant in CMA No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Addl. District Court-III, Alappuzha. The respondents 1 to 9 are the respondents in the said CMA. The original plaintiffs are direct brother and sisters of the defendants 1 & 2. During the pendency of the CMA the original 1st defendant died. OS No.310 of 2011 was filed by the original plaintiffs viz., V.R.Chandrasekhara Panicker, Smt.V.K.Saraswathy Amma and Smt.K.Indira Devi seeking partition of plaint A and B schedule properties having an extent of 52 cents and 50 cents respectively. 3. The specific case of the 1st defendant was that his father viz. Rama Panicker had executed Gift Deed No.93/1974 and Will Deed No.16/III/74 of SRO, Kalavoor and he is in possession of the plaint schedule property and properties are mutated in his name and is paying tax also and hence the plaint schedule properties are not partible and that there is every possibility of a judgment in his favour, if the suit is decided on merits. The original 1st defendant was aged 81 and he met with a road accident on 17.3.2011 and sustained fracture on his left knee. Thereafter he was not fully resumed his health after the accident as he became bed ridden and he was not in a position to move about without any external aid or support. Apart from that he is suffering from various age related ailments and as a result, he could not entrust the case to his advocate on time and thereupon suit was decreed ex parte and Ext.P5 preliminary decree was passed on 16.9.2014. The original 1st defendant's daughter and son were working abroad and he is residing with his wife aged 80, who is also suffering from old age ailments. In the year 2012 the original 1st defendant had undergone an eye operation in the Ahalya Foundation Eye Hospital, Palarivattom. Later on 14.11.2016, he was admitted in the Sahrudaya Hospital, Alappuzha due to stroke and was not able to speak and had undergone treatment as an inpatient till 19.11.2016. On 23.11.2016, he fell down and had fracture on 7th,8th and 9th ribs. Later on 14.11.2016, he was admitted in the Sahrudaya Hospital, Alappuzha due to stroke and was not able to speak and had undergone treatment as an inpatient till 19.11.2016. On 23.11.2016, he fell down and had fracture on 7th,8th and 9th ribs. Again on 12.3.2017 he fell down and as a result there was fracture on his right femur and femur implant surgery was done. From 14.4.2017 onwards, he continued the treatment as an inpatient at Assisi Hospice Palliative Care Centre and later on he was referred to Sahrudaya Hospital and treated as an inpatient. On receipt of the information about the ex parte decree from the original 1st plaintiff on 15.1.2018, the original 1st defendant with the assistance of the petitioner herein when she came on leave from abroad, filed IA No.2913/2017 with a prayer to condone the delay of 992 days in filing the petition and IA No.2919/2017 to set aside the ex parte decree which has produced as Exts.P6 and P7 in this original petition. The original 1st defendant has also produced Ext.P2 Gift Deed, Exts.P3 and P4 tax receipts and also the Discharge Summary showing his treatment and illness during that period and the same was marked as Exts.A7 to A10 and copies of which are produced herein as Exts.P8 to P11. The trial court without considering the above facts and circumstances in a proper perspective, dismissed the applications as per Exts.P12 and P13. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred as CMA No.9 of 2018 before the Additional District Court-III, Alappuzha through his power of attorney holder of the 1st defendant. While the CMA was pending the original 1st defendant who is the appellant died. Pursuant to his death Sreedeviamma and his children got impleaded as the additional appellants 2 to 4. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P14 judgment. It is aggrieved by the same the original petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that sufficient reasons have been stated for condoning the delay, but the court did not take into consideration the documents produced by the original 1st defendant who is the original appellant, while issuing Ext.P14 order. He also relies on the judgment in Sajitha Kumari Vs. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that sufficient reasons have been stated for condoning the delay, but the court did not take into consideration the documents produced by the original 1st defendant who is the original appellant, while issuing Ext.P14 order. He also relies on the judgment in Sajitha Kumari Vs. Prajith ( 2017 (1) KHC 48 ) and contend that the court should take a liberal approach while considering an application under Order IX Rule IX and Order IX Rule XIII and if there is a substantial issue to be considered, then, the court should allow the party to meet the case on merits. Petitioner also relies on the judgment in Robin Thapa v. Rohit Dora (2019 KHC 6641) and contended that litigation should not be terminated by default and the cause of justice does require that as far as possible, adjudication be done on merits. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 6 would submit that no sufficient reason has been stated for condonation of the delay in filing the petition to set aide the ex parte decree. There is absolutely no explanation regarding the period from 2012 to 2016 in the petition seeking to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay has not been properly explained and the petitions and appeal filed by the original 1st defendant has been correctly rejected by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 6. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. 7. Ext.P6 is a petition seeking to condone the delay in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree. Admittedly, as stated in Ext.P7 the petitioner was aged 86 at the time of filing of the application and on 17.3.2011 he was hit by a running bike and he sustained fracture on the left knee and he had undergone treatment for the same. It is also stated therein that his children are working abroad and he is living with his wife, who is also aged 80, that is the reason stated for not entrusting a lawyer within time to defend their case. It is also stated that he has hearing issues and he has to consult a speech and hearing care centre and had also undergone an eye surgery in the year 2012. It is also stated that he has hearing issues and he has to consult a speech and hearing care centre and had also undergone an eye surgery in the year 2012. In 2016 he was admitted in a hospital due to stroke and he was not able to speak. It is also stated that he fell down twice once in 2016 and in 2017 and on those occasions he had serious fracture on his ribs as well as right femur and he had also to undergo a surgery. True, a perusal of Ext.P7 would reveal that there is no sufficient reason stated for the delay from 2012 to 2016. But a crucial aspect to be taking note is that the original 1st defendant, the original appellant was aged 86 at the time of filing Ext.P7 application. He had old age ailments and also had serious health issues due to the accident and other situations explained in Ext.P7. Further he was residing along with his 80 year old wife and both children were abroad. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was aged 86 at the time of filing Ext.P7, naturally he will be having issues relating to old age. Over and above that he had to undergo several surgeries due to the accident as well as his fall which resulted in fracture on his ribs and right femur. He also had to undergo surgery of his eye. Taking into consideration the age of the original 1st defendant, who is the original appellant and also taking into consideration the fact that he has suffering from old age ailment, I am of the view that the delay has been sufficiently explained in Ext.P7. Taking into consideration the age of the 1st defendant/original appellant the non explanation of the delay for the period from 2012-2016 cannot be taken as a reason to reject the application. Taking into consideration the age of the 1st defendant/original appellant the non explanation of the delay for the period from 2012-2016 cannot be taken as a reason to reject the application. Further it is his case that as regard the plaint schedule properties the father of the 1st defendant/ appellant had executed a Gift deed No.93/1974 and Will deed No.16/III/74 of SRO, Kalavoor in his favour and he is the title holder and is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties by virtue of the above said deeds and that the properties were mutated in his name and tax was also paid and it is the contention that due to the above factual situation, there is every possibility for a judgment in his favour. The Apex Court in Robin Thapa's case cited supra, has held that the litigation should not be terminated by default and the cause of justice does require that as far as possible, adjudication be done on merits. It is seen that the 1st defendant/original appellant has a specific contention based on two documents that he is in exclusive ownership and possession of the plaint schedule property and that the properties are not partible. In Sajitha Kumari's case cited supra, this Court has also held that if there is a substantial issues to be considered, then the court should allow the parties to meet the case on merit and even if there is any laches the same can be compensated by ordering cost. 8. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and the legal position as explained above, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the original petition is allowed setting aside Ext.P14 judgment dated 8.12.2021 in CMA No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Court-III, Alappuzha as well as Ext.P13 order in IA No.2919 of 2017 in OS No.310 of 2011 dated 15.1.2018. IA No.2913 of 2017 in OS No.310 of 2011 will stand allowed on condition of payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to the 1st respondent herein within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The above original petition is disposed of accordingly.