ORDER :

1. The matter comes upon an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act preferred by the appellants for condonation of delay of 276 days as reported by the office though disputed by the appellants.

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the office has wrongly reported the appeal to be barred by 276 days treating the appeal to be filed on 01.03.2023 whereas the same was filed on 07.02.2023. Learned counsel further submitted that the delay caused in preferring the present appeal was bona fide as earlier the then Additional Advocate General was appointed and he was instructed to file the appeal in the present matter but subsequently vide letter dated 05.05.2022, directions were issued to the newly appointed Additional Advocate General as the State had made some changes in allotment of the departments as well as in the appointment of Additional Advocate Generals. Vide letter dated 25.08.2022, the subsequently appointed Additional Advocate General was instructed for filing appeal in the matter and in pursuance to the same, the present appeal was preferred in February, 2023. Learned counsel submits that the delay being totally bona fide deserves to be condoned. He further submits that the State has a strong prima facie case as the impugned judgment and decree whereby a decree for an amount of Rs.5,18,883/- has been passed in favour of the plaintiff is totally in contravention to the conditions of the agreement as entered into between the parties. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the Apex Court judgment passed in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Bal Kishan Mathur through legal representatives & Ors.; (2014) 1 SCC 592.

3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. M/s Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers submitted that the reasons as supplied in the application for condonation of delay cannot be termed to be plausible one as even after the directions vide letter dated 25.08.2022 being issued to the newly appointed Additional Advocate General, the appeal had been preferred in the Month of February, 2023 and no reason for the said delay has been explained.

4. Heard on the application and perused the documents as annexed alongwith the application.

5. True it is that as evident from the documents annexed with the application, the appeal was filed online on 07.02.2023 though registerd on 01.03.2023. Therefore, the limitation ought to have been computed by the office keeping into consideration the filing date to be 07.02.2023. But then, even if computed from 07.02.2023, the appeal still remains barred by more than 200 days.

6. It is clear on record that the instructions for filing the appeal were at the first instance given to Mr. Sunil Beniwal, the Additional Advocate General, then representing the department and later, because of the change in the allocation of departments, instructions were given to the newly appointed Additional Advocate General Mr. Sudhir Tak for filing the appeal. It is also clear on record that the newly appointed Additional Advocate General was instructed in the month of August, 2022 but the appeal has been preferred in the month of February, 2023 and no plausible reason for such inordinate delay has been given. But then firstly, the delay is evidently on part of the lawyer's office and secondly, the present is a regular first appeal and a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the appellant has a prima facie case in its favour.

7. In Bal Kishan Mathur's case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as und