Sufficient cause must be shown for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act; mere bureaucratic negligence is inadequate.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

Heard both the learned counsel on admission. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the appellants were represented through the District Government Pleader on 21.06.1997 and objection was also filed to the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and subsequently, the Trial Court noted that written statement was not filed on 24.07.1998 and thereafter, proceeded to consider the matter and the appellants have not pursued the matter diligently. However, appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court after a delay of 23 years and the First Appellate Court while considering the application in respect of the delay is concerned, observed that the reason assigned in the application is that the plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration of his title by way of adverse possession against the appellants, who are the State Government and its mechanism.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants contend that the suit is filed for the relief of adverse possession as against the Government, but in the case on hand, only there was 27 years i.e., less than 30 years and while seeking the relief of adverse possession against the Government, it must be 30 years. However, it is pleaded for condonation of delay before the First Appellate Court that the length of delay is not matter and merely because the delay is at length, the appeal cannot be dismissed and right of the appellants cannot be thrown away. Under the Limitation Act, no specific period to be condoned is fixed. Hence, there is no legal bar to condone the delay of any length. The appellants are the State Government and mechanism and it has to look after several acts day to day.Admittedly, there is some sort of negligence on the part of the Government Officials/Tahsildar and it is natural due to bureaucratic process, but it is not intentional one. When this averment was made in the application, the First Appellate Court allowed the appellants to examine the witness and witness is also examined in support of the said application to condone the delay.

3. The First Appellate Court having considered the material on record, in paragraph No.9 made an observation that the delay is not of few years. The delay is of 8,580 days i.e., more than 23 years and 6 months. This is an inordinate delay and the appeal is barred by law of limitation. There is gross and utter negligence on the part of the appellants and its officials. The First Appellate Court also taken note of that though Deputy Commissioner has ordered to prefer an appeal in the year 2005 and 2008 and though they were aware of the judgment long back, the officials have kept mum and not taken any action. They cannot blame the earlier DGP (District Government Pleader) as the officials were aware about the proceedings of the suit. When the respondent initiated writ proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, they were directed to mutate his name, but it was also not done by them. When he initiated contempt proceedings, the appellant No.1 has appeared before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and undertook to comply the said order. But, instead of doing so, the present appeal has been filed just to deprive the benefit of decree and right of the respondent. The appellants are not sure about their case and they have not shown any bonafide reasons to condone the delay and hence, comes to the conclusion that the reason assigned in the application is not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 23 years and detailed order has been passed dismissing the same.

4. The said order is challenged before this Court in this second appeal.

5. The main grounds urged in the second appeal are that the First Appellate Court gravely erred