( 1 ) THE present appeal arises out of the order and judgment dated 24th April 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application IA No. 4590/2007 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC filed by the appellant/defendants. ( 2 ) A suit for partition was filed in which an ex parte preliminary decree was passed by the learned Single Judge on 29th September, 2006. ( 3 ) IN the aforesaid suit, the defendants-appellant were served and entered appearance and filed their written statement. Thereafter, none appeared for the said defendants in the suit and vide order dated 9th May, 2006, the appellant-defendants were proceeded ex parte. ( 4 ) THE respondents/plaintiff were allowed to lead evidence by filing evidence, which was filed and thereafter, an ex parte preliminary decree was passed in the said suit for partition on 29th September, 2006. ( 5 ) THE appellant-defendants did not take any steps for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree till March, 2007. In the meanwhile, the Court had appointed a Local Commissioner directing him to file a report with regard to the partition of the suit property by metes and bounds with the respective share of the parties as determined in the decree. After the Local Commissioner visited the property, the appellant-defendants in March, 2007 filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte decree. The said application was considered but the same was rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that no cause is made out for setting aside the ex parte decree. ( 6 ) THE Local Commissioner had already filed a report. ( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed, which again is barred by limitation as there is a delay of about 108 days in filing the present appeal. The only ground given for the delay is, that the learned single Judge had granted permission to the appellant-defendants to file objections to the report of the Local Commissioner and consequently it took some time to file pleadings and thereafter, the present appeal is filed. ( 8 ) IN our considered opinion, there is no explanation at all for the delay of 108 days in filing the present appeal and for moving the application for setting aside of ex parte decree dated 29th September, 2006 in March, 2007. ( 8 ) IN our considered opinion, there is no explanation at all for the delay of 108 days in filing the present appeal and for moving the application for setting aside of ex parte decree dated 29th September, 2006 in March, 2007. The appellant- defendants were proceeded ex parte on 9th May, 2006. There is lack of due diligence and gross negligence on the face of the records. ( 9 ) THE appellants admittedly came to know about rejection of their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC vide order dated 24. 4. 2007, but have filed the appeal in the month of September, 2007. The fact that they wanted to file and have filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner before the learned single Judge did not prevent them from filing an appeal against the order dated 24. 4. 2007. There is no interconnection between the two and there is no basis and justification for the delay of 108 days in filing this appeal. The aforesaid delay of 108 days cannot be condoned. The said application is dismissed on that ground. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the impugned order and has submitted that he has a very strong case on merits. On going through the records, we find that even on merits also no ground is made out by the appellants. There was an inordinate delay, negligence and gross callousness by the appellant. The appellants were proceeded ex parte on 09. 5. 2006 and thereafter, an ex parte decree was also passed on 29. 9. 2006. The appellants have been silent all throughout till the aforesaid applications were filed sometime after March, 2007. This period remains unexplained. It was for the appellant-defendants to remain in touch, keep track of their case and follow up the matter. ( 11 ) WE find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single judge. The appeal has no merit apart from being time barred and is accordingly