The law of limitation binds everybody including the Government and condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments.

JUDGMENT

Battu Devanand, J. - This I.A.No.1 of 2018 has been filed praying to condone the delay of 669 days in filing the Second Appeal.

2. The Second Appeal is filed against the decree and judgment, dated 11.08.2015 in A.S.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri in which the decree and judgment, dated 21.10.2014 in O.S.No.92 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri is reversed.

3. The petitioner is the 2nd defendant and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.92 of 2012. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property.

5. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statements. The trial Court basing on the respective pleadings of both parties, after conducting trial, having heard both sides, dismissed the suit by its decree and judgment, dated 21.10.2014 holding that the suit for bare injunction by the plaintiff without seeking declaratory relief in respect of the plaint schedule property is not maintainable when there is serious disputes with regard to the title of the plaint schedule property.

6. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. praying the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and to grant permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 and their men from ever interfering with the enjoyment and management of the plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.

7. The 1st Appellate Court having heard the submissions of both parties and proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, allowed the appeal with costs holding that the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for and the decree and judgment in O.S.No.92 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri is reversed and the permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants, their men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

8. The unsuccessful 2nd defendant filed the present second appeal against the decree and judgment, dated 11.08.2015 in A.S.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. While filing the second appeal, an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1 of 2018 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 669 days in filing the second appeal.

9. As seen from the averments made in Para No.6 of the affidavit filed along with an application to condone the delay of 669 days in filing the Second Appeal are extracted hereunder:

"I submit that the 1st Appellate Court delivered the impugned Judgment in A.S.No.20 of 2014 on 11.08.2015. At the relevant point of time due to division of State and to construct new Capital at Amaravathi, Guntur District, the Andhra Pradesh Government formed the Capital Region Area Development to develop the capital city by acquiring the lands. For this purpose, land pooling scheme was introduced to acquire the lands and 7 villagers of Mangalagiri Mandal was comes under land pooling scheme, which is the half of the total Mangalagiri Mandal. Due to this acquisition proceedings the then Tahsilder and all staff were involved in acquisition proceedings as it involved lot of procedure such as comparing every land with 1B Registers, entering agreements and considering the objections etc., due to which the then Tahsildar and staff did not noticed the passing impugned judgment. I joined duty as Tahsildar on 26.10.2017 FN. After joining duty in inspection of records I came to know about the impugned judgment and I requested the learned Asst. Government Pleader to obtain certified copies to file Second Appeal. In the said process there was delay of 669 days occurred in filing the present