Point of Law: Merely because the applicant seeking condonation of delay is the Government, no exception can be made.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the applicants and Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the Proforma respondents.

2. By filing this application, the applicants seek condonation of 415 days delay in preferring the connected appeal against the Judgment & Decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 5/2015.

3. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC submits that the Judgment & Order was passed by the learned Trial Court on 07.03.2018 and a certified copy of the same was applied for on 16.03.2018. However, the certified copy become available for delivery to the applicants only on 20.07.2018 after more than 4 (four) months from the date of its application. On receiving the certified copy, the applicants took about 185 days for obtaining legal opinion and thereafter, 50 days time was spent to bring the entire records from the Headquarter for obtaining the opinion of the then Assistant Solicitor General of India. By the time, the consultation process and the preparation of the appeal was finalized, a delay of 415 days had occurred. She submits that as the delay has occasioned due to bona fide reasons, the same may be condoned. She also submits that even on merit, the applicants have a good case and they have every chance of succeeding in the appeal. She further submits that the issue involved in the appeal, in fact, is connected with another matter, which is under consideration by the State authorities on the basis of the direction given by this Court in a writ petition. Therefore, the outcome of such consideration may also be taken into account to consider the present application. As such, Court may condone the delay in filing the appeal otherwise, the applicants will face great hardship and loss. In support of her submission, the learned CGC refers to the case of State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani & Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 132.

4. Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the private respondent, on the other hand, submits that the application itself in fact is not maintainable because the deponent who has sworn the affidavit attached to the application is not the authorized person to swear the affidavit. He submits that the deponent has stated that he is the applicant in the Interlocutory Application but the Cause Title of the application clearly shows that the deponent is not the applicant. He submits that although the learned CGC has relied upon a notification issued by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Department of Legal Affairs dated 16.09.1998 to show that the deponent who sworn the affidavit is the authorized officer to swear the affidavit but the fact remains that, he is authorized to swear affidavit, etc on behalf of Border Roads Development Board and not on behalf of the Union of India, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport. He submits that this question has already been answered by this Court in CM Appln. No. 108/2012 A/o RFA No. 42/2012 (Union of India vs. Sh. K. Rozara & Ors.), vide Order dated 21.11.2012. Therefore, the application is clearly not maintainable on this ground.

5. The learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the application would go to show that the applicants have been most casual not only in preparing the application but also in pursuing their case before and after the Civil Suit was decided by the Lower Court. He submits that a bare perusal of the impugned judgment & decree would go to show that the applicants were given enough opportunities to file their written statement and to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses. Despite the same, they failed to take necessary steps as would be required for them to defend their case. He submits that the applicants have also withheld the actual facts from the Court. He submits that after the chance to file written statement was closed by the Trial Court on 11.