counsel admitted at oral argument that Domino’s has house counsel who certainly must be presumed to have been in communication with the private attorneys to whom they consigned this case; yet we are offered no explanation as to why such counsel so dismally failed to track the progress of the case, or the lack of it, over such a protracted period of time. Domino’s argues that any assessment of its diligence must be viewed in light of plaintiffs’ lengthy delay in executing the judgment. Such delay is a factor in determining a section 2 — 1401 petitioner’s diligence. However, delay in execution alone is not equated with fraudulent concealment nor does it excuse a party from its failure to follow its case. See Agorianitis v. Ress (1977), 55 Ill. App. 3d 325, 328, 371 N.E.2d 10, 11-12 (<HOLDING>); see also Airoom, 114 Ill. 2d at 227, 499
holding that engle established the conduct elements of a fraudulent concealment cause of action holding misleading partial disclosures may constitute fraudulent concealment holding that suit arose from alleged fraudulent transfer of real property located in texas even though the allegedly fraudulent assignment occurred in california holding allegation of fraudulent concealment did not affect the running of the survival statute holding that the plaintiffs mere failure to execute on a judgment the only allegedly fraudulent act is not fraudulent concealment