The law of limitation binds all parties, including the Government, and sufficient cause must be shown to condone delays in filing appeals.

JUDGMENT :

(Anil L. Pansare, J.)

1. Heard Ms D.V. Sapkal, learned A.G.P. for the appellants and Shri M.M. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

"1. Whether the learned trial Judge was justified in decreeing the suit filed by the respondent in absence of letter dated 16/3/2004 as well as without considering the effect, if any, to the Government Resolutions, which, according to the appellants, were not applicable to the respondent.

2. Whether the lower appellate Court has arrived at perverse finding of fact to the effect that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant in filing the first appeal beyond the period of limitation."

3. The appellant/State of Maharashtra is aggrieved by order dated 1/10/2008 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli in Misc. Civil Application No. 20/2008 refusing to condone delay of 14 months 10 days in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2/4/2007 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Suit No. 9/2005.

4. Shri M.M. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the first substantial question of law can only be answered if the second substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative. He submits that the first substantial question of law refers to the merits of the case and the Court may go into the merits of the case only upon satisfying itself that the appellants have shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing appeal.

5. The First Appellate Court has held that the appellants failed to show sufficient cause. Unless this finding is over-turned, the learned Counsel submits, this Court need not consider the first substantial question of law. He has invited my attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. and Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), wherein the Court, after referring to various rulings on law of limitation, has held in paragraph 26 as under :

"26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:

(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;

(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;

(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;

(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;

(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and

(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."

(emphasis supplied)

Thus, what has been said by the Supreme Court is that merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay. Thus, merits cannot be looked into to condo