A 32-year unexplained delay warrants rejection of an application to set aside an ex parte decree.

The petitioners, who were defendants in Civil Suit No. 6-A/1975, participated in the proceedings until 24 September 1975, when they were absent; an ex parte judgment and decree followed on 25 September 1975.

They applied under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to set aside the decree. An application filed in 2007 was withdrawn on 10 October 2017, and the present application was filed on 3 November 2017.

The trial court rejected the application on 1 October 2024, and the appellate court dismissed the petitioners’ appeal on 28 March 2026. The petitioners challenged those orders under Article 227 of the Constitution, attributing the delay to livelihood-related absence, deaths among the parties, and lack of awareness among their legal representatives.

Whether the petitioners established sufficient grounds to set aside the 1975 ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, despite filing their application after approximately 32 years.

Whether the courts below committed a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order IX Rule 13 CPC provides the procedural basis for seeking to set aside an ex parte decree; the petitioners invoked it with Section 151 CPC.

The Court’s reasoning proceeded on the principle that an exceptionally long delay in seeking that relief requires a plausible and bona fide explanation.

In exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the Court considered whether the subordinate courts’ decisions disclosed a jurisdictional error.

The petitioners had participated in the suit and knew of its pendency, yet took no steps to ascertain its status or seek appropriate relief after their absence on 24 September 1975.

The Court found their explanations—livelihood-related absence and subsequent lack of awareness among legal representatives—insufficient to account for the roughly 32-year delay, and held that the explanation was not bona fide.

As the trial and appellate courts had properly rejected the application and appeal, the Court found no jurisdictional error justifying Article 227 intervention.

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving in place the rejection of the Order IX Rule 13 CPC application and the ex parte decree.