The main legal principle established is that delay in filing appeals should be condoned when sufficient cause is shown, especially to advance substantial justice. The discretion to condone delay should be exercised to promote fairness and ensure justice.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

1. Rule.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners – original respondent Nos. 6 to 12 assailing an order dated 10.12.2018 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 133 of 2016 by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. By the said application, the respondent No. 1 herein – State had prayed for to condone the delay of 2308 days, caused in preferring an appeal under O.41 R.(1) and (2) and Section 96 of the of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) against a judgment and order dated 30.04.2010, decree dated 13.05.2010, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 483 of 1969 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), which came to be allowed and the delay caused in preferring the appeal was condoned.

3. Heard, learned Senior Advocate Shri I. H. Syed with learned advocate Mr. Ankit B. Pandya for the petitioners – original respondent Nos. 6 to 12, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Megha Chitaliya for the respondent No. 1 – State, learned advocate Ms. Vidita Jayswal for the respondent No. 4. The rest are though served, none has put in appearance.

4. The learned senior advocate for the petitioners, with all vehemence at his command, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, is illegal, perverse and against the settled principles of law. He submitted that merely because the applicant therein was State, such a huge delay ought not to have been condoned. He submitted that the suit was of the year 1969, wherein, decree came to be passed in the year 2010 and challenge to that decree is being made after lapse of period of 2308 days, which in no case could have been allowed.

4.1 The learned senior advocate for the petitioners submitted that in the application for condonation of delay, the case put forward by the State was that after the reference received from the Revenue Court (Mamlatdar and ALT), the civil Court did not issue any notice or summons to the Collector or to any other revenue officer and thereafter also, the State did not receive any intimation in respect of the final judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010. He submitted that false statement has been made inasmuch as State was duly served with the summons on 02.05.2009. Thereafter, notice was also served upon the Collector on 27.08.2009 and the matter was adjourned for about 41 times but none had remained present on behalf of the State and therefore, the explanation given by the State for condonation of delay of 2308 is neither plausible nor acceptable. It is submitted that material fact to the effect that summons was served to the the concerned State authority was suppressed before the learned District Court and thereby, in the submission of the learned senior advocate for the petitioners, the State committed fraud upon the Court.

4.2 Thus, making above submissions, it is urged that this petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order condoning the delay.

4.3 In support, the learned senior advocate for the petitioners has relied upon following decisions:

i) State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654;

ii) Ramsangbhai Samjibhai Chunara v. Hansrajbhai Ravjibhai Kadiwar, dated 30.09.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 16766 of 2014;

iii) Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563;

iv) State of Gujarat v. Bajarandas Hansdas Kubavat, 2016(0) AIJEL-HC 235962;

v) Chabaji Balaji – Since deceased v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, 2018 (0) AIJEL-HC 239079;

vi) State of Gujarat and Others v. Kasiben Ratanjibhai Gamit, 2021 (3) GLR 1987.

5. Per contra, learned AGP, while heavily opposing this petition and supporting the impugned order condoning the delay, submitted that neither summons of the decision of the revenue Court was issued nor the notice of final hearing was issued by the Court and thereby, for the period between 1994 to 2010, the suit was not