As per case facts, plaintiffs ordered goods from defendants, but a shortage occurred due to a defective weigh-bridge. Defendants were proceeded ex-parte as their counsel had no instructions, leading to ... a decree in plaintiffs' favor. Defendants' attempts to set aside the ex-parte order and appeal the judgment were dismissed by lower courts due to significant delay and lack of diligence. The petitioners appealed to the High Court, challenging these dismissals. The question arose whether the petitioners were entitled to relief despite their prolonged negligence in pursuing the litigation and substantial delay in appealing. Finally, the High Court determined that the petitioners' callous and negligent attitude in pursuing the litigation, including significant delays, was unacceptable. It affirmed that litigants, even public sector undertakings, must be vigilant and cannot solely blame their counsel, upholding the dismissal of both the Revision Petition and Regular Second Appeal.