IMPORTANT POINT
Period of limitation – Condonation of delay – No event or circumstance arising after expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause – Expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party.

ORDER :

1. This Special Leave Petition is filed by the petitioner-State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur¹ [Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”] in Second Appeal No. 2895 of 2019, whereby, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed with inordinate delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days and no satisfactory reason was adduced for the same.

2. We have heard Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the petitioner, who submitted that the delay caused in filing the second appeal was well explained by the State and the same was not intentional. However, the High Court erroneously dismissed the second appeal on the ground of delay, without considering the merits of the case, wherein, valuable Government lands measuring total extent of 1,300 Hectare situated at Village Majhganwa, Tehsil and District Katni, were involved. He further submitted that though the trial Court passed the well-reasoned judgment dismissing the suit filed by the respondent herein, the first Appellate Court reversed the same and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent, thereby affecting the right of the petitioner in respect of the said lands.

3. It appears from the materials on record that originally, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 79A/2011 before the Civil Judge, Class-2, Katni² [Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the trial Court”] seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of lands in Survey Nos.107, 108, 115, respectively measuring an extent of 0.36, 0.40, 0.54 hectare situated at village Majhganwa, Katni, stating that that he has been in possession of the said lands since 1970 and has been given leasehold right by the Settlement Officer in the year 1989. By judgment and decree dated 29.08.2013, the trial Court dismissed the said suit. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred Civil Appeal No. 25A/2013 which was allowed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Katni³ [Hereinafter referred to as “the First Appellate Court”] by judgment and decree dated 21.08.2014. Stating that the land in Khasra No. 107 admeasuring 0.36 hectare was registered in the name of Bhu-Dan Board, Government of M.P. and the land in Khasra Nos. 108 and 115 was reserved for Charokhar, Grass, Beed or Chara as per Nistar Patrak; and the respondent was not in possession of the said lands and leasehold right was not given to him by any settlement officer and no consent was also given in this regard, the State preferred Second Appeal No. 2895 of 2019 along with an Interlocutory Application No. 13106 of 2019 seeking to condone the delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days in filing the same. The High Court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the second appeal by the judgment impugned herein.

4. Evidently, there was enormous delay occurred at every stage i.e. from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court to till the date of filing the second appeal by the State. The judgement was passed by the First Appellate Court on 21.08.2014 and the same was communicated by the Government Advocate representing the State to the Collector, only on 25.08.2015 i.e., after a delay of one year. Causing 3 months’ delay, by letter dated 10.12.2015, the Collector informed to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, about the passing of the judgment against the State and preferring a second appeal against the same. Thereafter, the Law Department took three years’ time and gave permission for filing appeal on 26.10.2018, which was sent to the Collector on 31.10.2018. Based on the said opinion, after preparation of the appeal papers, the State filed the second appeal only on 18.10.2019. Hence, there was inordinate delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second appeal, but the same was not properly explained by the State.

5. The legal position is that where a case has been presented in th