Key Points: - The judgment discusses the bar created by the explanation to Order IX Rule 13 of the Code and its application when an appeal against an ex parte decree has been disposed of on any ground other than withdrawal (limitation/default) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It holds that if an appeal against an ex parte decree has not been withdrawn and is disposed of on any ground, the petition under Order IX Rule 13 would not lie (!) . - It clarifies that disposal of the appeal may be on any ground and withdrawal is explicitly exempted from the bar; thus even dismissal for default or due to limitation can trigger the explanation's effect, preventing a petition under Order IX Rule 13 (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court emphasizes the legislative intent to prevent prolonged litigation after an ex parte decree by restricting subsequent applications to set aside the decree when an appeal exists but is disposed of (not withdrawn) (!) (!) . - The decision affirms that the petition under Order IX Rule 13 would be barred in such circumstances, and the remedy is foreclosed thereby upholding the appellate disposal as operative (!) . - It discusses interpretation of what constitutes an appeal in law when combined with delay condonation applications and their impact on finality of the decree (!) (!) . - The conclusions apply consistently to similar factual patterns where an appeal is pending or disposed of, affecting subsequent applications under Order IX Rule 13 (!) (!) (!) .

How to determine whether an appeal accompanied by an application for condoning delay is an appeal in the eye of law?

What is the effect of the explanation to Order IX Rule 13 on maintainability of a petition under Order IX Rule 13 when an ex parte decree is appealed or dismissed for default or limitation?

What are the rights of a party when an ex parte decree is challenged by filing an appeal and the appeal is disposed of on grounds other than withdrawal of the appeal?