E.C MARY Vs. RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.Appln.No.669 of 2014 is filed to condone the delay of 449 days in filing F.A.O.No.256 of 2014. Similarly C.M.Appln.No.670 of 2014 is filed to condone the delay of 438 days delay in filing F.A.O.No.257 of 2014.

(2.) F.A.O.No.256 of 2014 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 8.2.2013 passed by the trial court dismissing I.A.No.3226 of 2011 in O.S.No.691 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur, filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC seeking to set aside the ex -parte decree passed against the predecessor in interest of the appellants and the 3rd respondent on 8.12.2010. Insofar as F.A.O.No.257 of 2014 is concerned, it is filed aggrieved by the order dated 31.1.2013 dismissing I.A.No.3227 of 2011 filed under order IX Rule 9 of CPC, for restoration of O.S.No.347 of 2007. O.S.No.691 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 24.1.2007, whereas O.S.No.343 of 2007 was filed by the predecessor in interest of the appellants for a declaration that the aforesaid agreement is vitiated by fraud, undue influence and mistake. The suits were ordered to be tried jointly and on 3.12.2010, on account of the absence of the plaintiff in O.S.No.343 of 2007, the suit was dismissed, while for the same reason defendant in O.S.No.691 of 2007 was set ex -parte and by judgment and decree rendered on 9.12.2010, the suit was decreed, and specific performance of the agreement was ordered. IAs in question were filed for setting aside the aforesaid orders and on the dismissal of which, these appeals are filed, along with the applications for condonation of delay.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 in these appeals. According to the appellants, after the judgments and decrees were passed, their predecessor in interest expired on