JUDGMENT : Arindam Mukherjee, J. The respondent/plaintiff on or about 3rd March, 2014 instituted the suit on account of unpaid price of goods sold and delivered to the appellant/defendant. The writ of summons was admittedly served on the appellant/defendant through bailiff on 12th March, 2014 and 25th March, 2014 by speed post. The appellant/defendant did not enter appearance in the suit or filed his written statement to contest the suit. 2. The suit admittedly appeared in the cause list but the appellant/defendant did not appear even at that stage. The suit was decreed on 7th January, 2016. 3. The appellant/defendant alleged to have come to know about the decree on or about December 20, 2016 upon receiving a letter dated 17th December, 2016, from Ms. S.G. Muskara & Co., by which the order dated 17th December, 2016 passed in the execution case initiated by the respondent/plaintiff for executing the decree dated 7th January, 2016. Subsequent thereto, the appellant/defendant filed an application under the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, challenging the decree contending that the same was passed ex parte as he was prevented by sufficient cause from attending the Court and contesting the suit. The application so filed was numbered as G.A. No. 61 of 2017. 4. After several days of hearing when the appellant/defendant got the fullest opportunity to assail the decree the said application being G.A. No. 61 of 2017 was dismissed by an order dated 13th April, 2017. The Hon'ble Single Judge completely disbelieved the explanations given by the appellant/defendant for being prevented from contesting the suit. 5. The said order dated 13th April, 2017 was carried on in appeal and was also dismissed by a judgment and order dated 19th June, 2017. The Hon'ble Division Bench gave independent findings to uphold the order under appeal. 6. The appellant/defendant preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgment and decree dated 19th June, 2017 which was dismissed by an order dated 27th October, 2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. The Hon'ble Division Bench gave independent findings to uphold the order under appeal. 6. The appellant/defendant preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgment and decree dated 19th June, 2017 which was dismissed by an order dated 27th October, 2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. It will, however, appear from the records that apart from the decree being contended to be an ex parte, the appellant/defendant included some grounds on merit while challenging the decree which were, however, in normal course not considered by the Court since it was hearing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 8. After dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the appellant/defendant has preferred the instant appeal challenging the decree dated 7th January, 2016 on merits. The appellant/defendant has also filed an application being G.A. No. 237 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant/defendant has also filed an application for stay and the decree dated 7th January, 2016 being G.A. No. 238 of 2018. 9. After perusing the application for condonation of delay, we found that the appellant/defendant has harped on the same explanations on which he attempted to assail the decree contending it to be an ex parte one. In addition thereto he has sought for exclusion of time for which he was pursuing his remedy before the Hon'ble Single Bench, the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India alleging the decree to be an ex parte one. 10. The appellant/defendant relied upon two judgments respectively reported in 2000(2) M.P.L.J 491 and 2004(3) A.P.L.J 423 to support his cause that an appeal challenging the decree on merits is maintainable after dismissal of an application under the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. It is now settled principle that an appeal on merit assailing the decree is maintainable after rejection of the Order IX Rule 13 application. However, in the judgment reported in 2004(3) A.P.L.J 423 clearly held that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no manner of application in a case when an application is filed seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an ex parte decree, when such an appeal is filed after dismissal of an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. The appellant/defendant, therefore, has to explain the delay in filing the appeal for the whole period starting right from the passing of the decree till filing of the appeal on merits. 11. On considering the said application for condonation of delay and after hearing the parties we had real doubt as to the bona fides of the appellant/defendant in explaining the delay from the period between 7th January, 2016 till the filing of the application challenging the decree alleging it to be an ex parte one, filed sometimes in early April, 2017 and thereafter till the filing of the appeal on merits. We, therefore, in order to consider the explanations given by the appellant/defendant fresh in isolation of the findings in the Order IX Rule 13 proceedings and to do substantive justice without adverting to the technicalities asked the appellant/defendant to be personally present to be examined for ascertaining the fact as to whether the appellant/defendant was watching from the wings or was actually prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal. We felt that if the appellant/defendant could cross such hurdle then only we can admit the appeal to be heard on merits and the question of stay of the decree would arise. In course of argument we had referred to the judgment reported in 2013(12) SCC 649 and in particular to paragraph 21 thereof where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guiding principles while considering an application for condonation of delay to be considered by the parties. 12. After considering the deposition of the appellant/defendant we are of the firm view that the lack of bona fide imputable to the appellant/defendant is so heavily tilted against him that the issue of doing substantial justice which is considered paramount and pivotal without giving undue and uncalled emphasis to the technical considerations get subsided. Moreover, the moment the appellant/defendant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 he has to explain the delay for the entire period right from passing of the decree till filing of the instant appeal. The application for delay on a bare perusal appears to be bereft of any ground. Moreover, the moment the appellant/defendant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 he has to explain the delay for the entire period right from passing of the decree till filing of the instant appeal. The application for delay on a bare perusal appears to be bereft of any ground. We are unable to accept the explanation given by the appellant/defendant in condoning the delay even considering the same in isolation to the fact that such explanations have been disbelieved right up to the Supreme Court when we weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both the parties. 13. That apart, and in any event, the cause shown for not filing the vakalatnama, non filing of written statement by putting the blame on the advocates is clearly a mala fide approach. It is apparent from the deposition of the appellant/defendant that he took no effort to file his written statement or approach the Court for extension of time to file the same. The writ of summons was admittedly received by the appellant/defendant wherein the time frame within which the appellant/defendant was required to file his vakalatnama and the written statement was clearly provided. The appellant/defendant has admitted to be aware of such time frame in his deposition. Assuming without admitting that the advocate alleged to have been engaged by him did not take steps to file the vakalatnama or prepare the written statement to be filed by him, the appellant/defendant despite being aware of the fact that the same are to be filed within a particular time frame took no steps even thereafter. The appellant/defendant showed no diligence to file the same even after the time frame expired by approaching the Court. He also took no steps to engage other advocates to represent him in the suit. This conduct of the appellant/defendant is also tainted with mala fide. Even if we discount the lack of sufficient cause to appear on the day when the decree was passed which has been upheld right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court we find no materials placed in the said application for condonation of delay even prima facie persuade us to condone the delay taking the most lenient view. There is no explanation far less any cogent explanation to encourage us to condone the delay. 14. There is no explanation far less any cogent explanation to encourage us to condone the delay. 14. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal being G.A. No. 237 of 2018 is dismissed for the reasons stated hereinabove. The application for stay and the appeal, therefore, calls for no consideration on merits. The registry is directed to deregister the appeal. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on a priority basis.