JUDGMENT :

The State of Kerala represented by the District Collector, Palakkad and others are the appellants, who are the defendants in O.S.No.336/2005 on the files of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Palakkad, in this regular second appeal filed under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The sole respondent herein is the original plaintiff.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent in detail.

3. I shall refer the parties in this regular second appeal as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants' for convenience.

4. On hearing both sides, the following substantial questions of law raised and the appeal is admitted :

1. Whether the appellants herein established 'sufficient cause' to condone delay in filing A.S.No.101/2021 before the District Court, Palakkad, as contended in I.A.No.1/2021 in the said appeal, within the mandate of Section 5 of the Limitation Act ?

2. While considering the impact of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, any concession or leeway to be provided to the State where the laches of the officials to secure unholy gains are apparent?

5. The learned Government Pleader, appearing for the State, would submit that admittedly, the first appeal was filed along with I.A.No.1/2021 to condone delay of 1427 days. According to the learned Government Pleader, the reasons for the delay are illustrated in the affidavit in support of the petition. It is pointed out that the present appellant, Tahsildar (Land Records), Palakkad, took charge on 18.06.2020 and there occurred some delay and the delay was not willful and deliberate, and the same was the result of the incorrect appreciation of facts from the records made available by the officials concerned. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader pressed for remanding the matter before the first appellate court, after condoning the delay, by allowing I.A.No.1/2021, for hearing the appeal on merits.

6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff vehemently opposed condonation of delay as well as any order upsetting the finding of the first appellate court as well as the trial court in this appeal, mainly canvassing the lethargy throughout the proceedings on the part of the appellants by pointing out sequence of events starting from 28.07.2007 to 10.01.2023. The prime argument at the instance of the learned Senior counsel is that I.A.No.1/2021 had been filed as on 15.12.2021 and about 10 months before, exactly on 24.02.2021, the second appellant filed counter affidavit in E.P.No.143/2018 vide E.A.No.68/2021 and also filed petition to re-call the warrant issued against him by the execution court while proceeding to execute the decree in E.P.No.143/2018.

7. When the recent decision of the Apex Court granting leeway to the Government in the matter of delay is pointed out, the learned Senior counsel bona fidely placed the said decision in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through legal representatives and Others v. Union of India and Another, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531 and referred the earlier decisions considered by the Apex Court therein, with particular mention to the decision in University of Delhi v. Union of India, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 745 and also the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Bherulal, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 654.

8. On perusal of the above decision, the Apex Court considered challenge against condonation of delay of 479 days in filing an appeal against a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, at the instance of the Union of India. In the said case, the High Court condoned the delay and the same was challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court justified condonation of delay after referring the three Bench decision in University of Delhi's case (supra) and set out principles governing consideration of the expression ‘sufficient cause’ and in paragraph 35, the principles have been summarised as under :

“35.1. The