The main legal point established in the judgment is that the explanations provided for the delay in filing the appeal were insufficient and did not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation. The court emphasized the importance of diligence and commitment in performing duties, especially for government departments.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. D. Kalita, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Dhubri, whereby the application being registered as Petition No. 1152 dated 04.09.2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was allowed thereby condoning the delay of more than 18 years in connection with Title Appeal No. 32/19.

3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the Petitioner herein as Plaintiff had filed the suit being Title Suit No. 331/1995 in the Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri seeking declaration that the land described in Schedule-C to the plaint has been wrongly recorded as Khas in Khas Khatian No. 1 and is a part and parcel of Dag No. 844 in Khatian No. 369 in village Dakhin Tokrarchera, Part-IV under P.S. Golakganj in the District of Dhubri; a decree for declaration that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest with a confirmation of possession over the Schedule-C land; a decree for declaration that the record in respect of the land specified in Schedule-C land so prepared by the defendant as khas is wrong and liable to be corrected in the name of the plaintiff under Dag No. 844 of Khatian No. 369 declaring the said to be the part of Schedule-A land; a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from evicting and dispossessing the plaintiff from the Schedule-C land for cost and other reliefs. In the said suit, the defendants were at the State of Assam represented by the Collector Dhubri, and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Golakganj Circle, Golakganj.

4. The said defendants filed their written statement. In the said written statement, it was the specific stand of the defendants was that the plaintiff is an encroacher in the road side Govt. khas land and liable to be evicted. It was also the stand taken that the suit land neither belongs to settle land nor any part of the Khatiandar. The Khatian was continued as ejmali an area of 2 Bighas 12 Lechas in Patta No. 190 in Dag No. 844 in the name of Bhuban Chandra Prodhani.

5. On the basis of the said pleadings, as many as 7 issues were framed. The plaintiff examined 2 witnesses including himself and exhibited some documents. The defendants side however did not adduce any evidence nor exhibited any documents. In deciding the Issue No. 5 which pertains as to whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest and possession over the suit land, the Trial Court opined that the suit land is in continuous possession of the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest and as such the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land. On the basis of the findings, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff declaring the plaintiff's right, title, interest and possession over the Schedule-C land alongwith the decree of correction of records of rights. A permanent injunction was also granted restraining from eviction from the Schedule-C land. The said judgment and decree was passed on 29.06.2001.

6. Thereafter, the record reveals that an execution proceeding was initiated being Title Execution Case No. 35/2001. The Executing Court vide an order dated 18.10.2001 issued precept to the judgment debtors as per the decree. Subsequent thereto, on 20.03.2002, a petition was filed by the judgment debtors stating inter alia that the concerned authority in the meantime have been directed for correction of the records as per the precept issued in the case. It was therefore submitted that the Title Execution Case No. 35/2001 be closed on satisfaction of the decree. To the said Petition, a communication issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri was enclosed dated 20.03.2002 wherein the Additional Deputy Commissioner had directed the Assistant Settlemen