As per case facts an ex-parte decree for specific performance was passed against the respondents who initially contested the suit but later stopped appearing then lost their attempt to set ... aside the decree on grounds of delay with the Supreme Court affirming the dismissal of their delay condonation plea the respondents then filed a fresh appeal against the ex-parte decree again with a large delay condonation application over three years which the First Appellate Court dismissed but the High Court allowed leading to the appellant's appeal The question arose whether the High Court was justified in condoning an enormous delay in filing the appeal when the same reasons for delay had already been judicially rejected in the earlier round of litigation to set aside the ex-parte decree particularly when the precedent relied upon was distinguishable on facts Finally the Supreme Court allowed the appeal ruling that the High Court erred by relying on a non-analogous precedent and that permitting a re-agitation of the delay issue based on the same unconvincing grounds already rejected by the Supreme Court constituted an abuse of the process of law thereby setting aside the High Court's order