ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

2. The present Civil Revision application has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Rohtas, Sasaram (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’) in Title Appeal No. 82 of 2013 whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court allowed the application filed by the State under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) and condoned an extraordinary delay of about 22 years in filing the appeal, thereby admitting the same for hearing on merits. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has approached this Court seeking interference in revisional jurisdiction.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that the Title Suit No. 96 of 1982/147 of 1990 was instituted by the father of the present petitioner seeking declaration of title and confirmation of possession along with permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The said suit was contested and ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 02.05.1991, which forms part of the record as Annexure-1. It is not disputed that the judgment was delivered in the presence of the Government Pleader representing the State authorities. Despite the decree having attained finality, the State did not prefer any appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. After a lapse of more than two decades, the State filed Title Appeal No. 82 of 2013 along with an application under Section 5 of the Act, which is available as Annexure-2, seeking condonation of delay of about 22 years. The explanation furnished therein was that the State had no knowledge of the judgment and decree until 03.09.2013, when a copy of the writ petition was received by the Circle Officer.

4. The petitioner entered appearance in the appeal and filed objection dated 09.06.2014, brought on record as Annexure-3, specifically disputing the correctness of the grounds taken for condonation. It was asserted that the State had full knowledge of the judgment since the Government Pleader was present at the time of its pronouncement and that the plea of lack of knowledge was wholly false and untenable. Initially, the Appellate Court, by order dated 23.06.2015 (Annexure-4), admitted the appeal subject to consideration of limitation at the stage of final hearing. The said order was challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11843 of 2015, which was disposed of on 09.04.2019 (Annexure-5) by setting aside the order of admission and remitting the matter back to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration on the question of limitation.

5. Pursuant to the remand, the Appellate Court reheard the matter and by the impugned order dated 14.08.2019, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal, leading to the present revision.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had meticulously submitted that the impugned order suffers from grave illegality, perversity, and non-application of judicial mind. It is submitted that the delay of approximately 22 years in filing the appeal is not only inordinate but is wholly unexplained and lacks bona-fides. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the entire foundation of the State’s application under Section 5 of the Act rests on a false and misleading plea that the authorities had no knowledge of the judgment and decree dated 02.05.1991 until 03.09.2013. It is submitted that this contention stands completely demolished from the records themselves:

i. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the judgment in the original suit was delivered in the presence of the Government Pleader representing the State. In such circumstances, the knowledge of the Government Pleader must be imputed to the State authorities in law. It is urged that a litigant, particularly th