The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging an order by the Allahabad High Court. The case revolved around the appellant's failure to file a timely application to set aside an ex-parte order issued in 2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Barabanki. The appellant's delayed application, filed 14 years later, was rejected due to the lack of a reasonable explanation. Both the trial court and the revisional court had previously dismissed the appellant's claims. The High Court, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, upheld these decisions. The Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere, emphasizing that discretionary power to condone delays must be exercised judiciously and is not applicable in cases of gross negligence or inaction.

1. Background of the Case:
The dispute originated from a piece of land in Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh, sold by Kalawati (Respondent No. 4) to Mansa Ram (Respondent No. 5) in 2006, and subsequently sold to the appellant. The respondents filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed, arguing that Kalawati had no transferable right or title over the property.

2. Appellant's Failure to Act Promptly:
Despite being served notice and filing a vakalatnama in April 2006, the appellant did not submit written statements. The trial court decided to proceed ex-parte against the appellant on September 6, 2006. The appellant filed a delayed application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the CPC in 2017, which was not pressed and subsequently refiled in 2020.

3. Trial Court and Revisional Court's Rulings:
The trial court dismissed the appellant's second application, citing contradictory statements and no reasonable cause for the delay. The revisional court also found no merit in the appellant's explanations and upheld the trial court's decision.

4. High Court's Dismissal of Petition:
The appellant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, which noted the appellant's gross negligence in pursuing the matter and lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

5. Supreme Court's Judgment:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing that the term 'sufficient cause' should be liberally construed only when there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the litigant. The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory reason for the 14-year delay in filing the application.