As per case facts, villagers (plaintiffs) filed a suit to prevent the plotting or sale of temple land, which was decreed ex-parte when defendants failed to appear. Years later, defendants ... sought to set aside this decree, citing misplaced papers and illness, which the Trial Court allowed with nominal costs despite a significant delay. The High Court noted the land was acquired for a welfare scheme, and prior challenges to this acquisition were dismissed. The question arose whether the Trial Court was justified in condoning such a substantial delay with minimal costs, particularly given the authorities' conduct and the long-standing nature of the litigation, especially when the land acquisition had been previously upheld. Finally, the High Court, while criticizing the reasons for delay and the authorities' negligence, affirmed the Trial Court's decision to set aside the ex-parte decree to allow a decision on merits, recognizing the temple ownership and validated acquisition. However, the High Court significantly increased the costs payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs for condoning the delay.