The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process, the preference for substantial justice over technical justice, and the principle that when the State is the party, some latitude has to be given in condoning the delay.

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

1. Delay of 414 days in preferring the appeal is sought to be condoned. Same is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, on the two counts:

First, the delay has not been cogently explained, and,

Second, there is no merit in the case of the appellants.

Suit has been instituted on 08.08.2012, same has been decreed on 29.04.2014. Certified copy of the judgment and decree has been applied for on 18.06.2014 and same has been issued on 19.06.2014. Instant application seeking condonation has been filed on 18.08.2015. In the application for condonation of delay, following grounds have been projected:

(1) The counsel for the judgment debtors (appellants) did not inform about passing of the judgment and decree. It was only when a notice in execution proceedings was served on 05.06.2015, knowledge dawned upon the appellants;

(2) The delay is not intentional but due to procedural formalities which is imperative when State proposes to file appeal etc.

(3) The government being impersonal machinery, decisions are taken at slow pace, therefore, certain amount of latitude is permissible, pragmatic approach is required to be adopted while considering case for condonation.

2. It is a fact that the delay has not been cogently explained. Record reveals that the appellants had caused appearance during trial of the suit and had filed the written statement. According to appellants, the engaged counsel did not inform them about passing of the judgment but there is no such affidavit on behalf of the counsel to the effect that no information about passing of judgment was sent to the appellants. In the application it is stated that it is execution proceedings when a notice was served upon them on 05.06.2015, they came to know about passing of the judgment but then they have applied for the certified copy on 18.06.2014, same has been issued to them on 19.06.2014. From 19.06.2014 till filing of application on 18.08.2015, no explanation is forthcoming.

3. Learned Dy. AG submit that devastative floods of 2014 also contributed to the delay, which, in effect, is without any substance because in the Kashmir Valley, devastative floods were witnessed in the month of September, 2014 and its impact ended in the month of December, 2014. Though nothing on such count is pleaded in the application but it is a fact of which judicial notice can be taken as is taken. Even if that period of three months is excluded, what can be the explanation for the period January, 2015 to August, 2015.

4. It is a fact that when State is the party, some latitude has to be given, which has also been settled in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Ors." (AIR 1996 SC 1623). Para 10 is relevant to be quoted:

"10. It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court - be it by private party or the State - are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is equally common knowledge that litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a com