Honble SINGH, J.–Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not in a position to file the additional affidavit because the officer incharge has not turned down. He prays for further time to file additional affidavit. Since no cogent reason for filing the additional affidavit has been shown, the prayer for further time is rejected.

(2). Heard the learned counsel for the parties regarding the application filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(3). In the present case, the appeal was filed after 83 days beyond the period prescribed for filing the appeal. The appellant has moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The application is contested by the respondents, who have filed reply of the application filed by the appellant.

(4). Two grounds have been taken by the appellant in the application filed un- der Section 5 of the Limitation Act. First is that in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sriganganagar, the appellant, Union of India was not duly represented. The second ground is that since the file was routed through a number of channels and Court Fee of Rs. 70,000/- had to be filed, as soon as the permission of the same was granted, the present appeal was filed before this Court.

(5). Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the first ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any basis as the appellant Union of India was impleaded as defendant No.3 and Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta, the Government advocate was representing the appellant in the lower Courts. A perusal of the certified copy of the impugned judgments dated 2nd April, 1998 pas- sed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sriganganagar shows that the appellant Union of India had been impleaded as defendant No.3 and Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta, Government Advocate was representing the appellant. In view of this fact, which has not been controverted by any evidence, the first submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Union of India was not duly represen- ted before the lower Courts does not appear to be well founded. It deserves to be rejected.

(6). The second ground for condonation of delay as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Court Fee of Rs. 70,000/- have to be filed and the file was to be routed through a number of channels and as soon as the permi- ssion was granted, the present appeal was prepared by the learned counsel for the appellant and presented before this Court. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sriganganagar passed the judgment under appeal on 2nd April, 1998. The appeal was filed in the Court by the appellant on 26th September, 1998 i.e. after five months and twenty four days from the date of the judgment. After taking into account the time for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and period prescribed for filing of the appeal, there appears to be a delay of 83 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has not given the relevant dates on which the file was sent from one department to another nor given any reasons whatsoever to show the cause of delay. On 20th January, 1999, learned counsel for the appellant requested that time be given to him to file an additional affidavit and time was granted to him but no additional affidavit could be filed by the appellant as the incharge did not taken steps to file the same.

(7). Learned counsel for the appellant has in these circumstances relied on the general observations made in some judgments. In the case of Special Tehsildar Land Acquisition Kerala vs. K.V. Ayisumma (1), the Honble Apex Court observed;

``It is now settled law that when the delay was occasioned at the behest of the Government, it would be very difficult to explain the day to day delay. The transaction of the business of the Government was being done leisurely by officers who had no or e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document