Government negligence must be addressed with diligence; long unexplained delays in legal processes will not justify the setting aside of ex-parte decrees.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioners in this CMP seek to assail the judgment dated 19^th July, 2023 (Annexure-10) passed by Additional District Judge, Bhawanipatna in Civil Revision No.5 of 2019, whereby confirming the order dated 4^th September, 2019 (Annexure-9) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhawanipatna in CMA No.2 of 2018 (CMA No.3 of 2018), learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the order allowing an application filed by the State-Opposite Parties under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

3. Brief facts relevant for consideration of this Court are that TS No.41/117 of 2002-2005 was filed by the Petitioners against the State-Opposite Party for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property by way of adverse possession. Although the State-Opposite Party appeared through learned Government Pleader, but did not file its written statement. Consequently, the Suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment dated 21^st September, 2006. An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in CMA No.2 of 2018 (Annexure-6) was filed by the State-Defendant for setting aside the ex-parte decree along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT . It is stated in the petition under Annexure-6 that although the State-Opposite Party entered appearance in the suit, but no para-wise comment could be provided. Thus, the written statement could not be filed within the stipulated time. On the basis of the ex parte decree, the Petitioners on 2^nd June, 2016, filed an application before the Tahasildar, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna for mutation of the suit land in their favour. After filing of the mutation case, they came to know about the ex-parte decree and applied for the certified copy from which they came to know that no written statement was filed in the suit. It is also stated in the petition that for the negligence of the officials, who were looking after the suit on their behalf, the State should not suffer. Property involved is a valuable piece of government land (anabadi). Unless the ex-parte decree is set aside the State would be highly prejudiced. It was also stated that the suit was not maintainable for non-compliance of provisions of Section 80 CPC. After it came to the knowledge of the officials that an ex-parte decree has been passed obtaining necessary documents, the petition under Order IX Rule 13 was filed in the year 2018 along with a petition in CMA No.3 of 2018 under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT . Learned trial Court holding that the land involved is a valuable piece of property and in the meantime, several officials have been transferred for which the proceedings of the suit could not be kept track of, allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC vide order under Annexure-9. Assailing the same, Petitioners preferred Civil Revision No.5 of 2019, which was dismissed vide judgement under Annexure-10. Hence, the CMP has been filed assailing the impugned judgment under Annexures- 9 and 10.

3.1 Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that Government officials should not be rewarded for their negligence. The grounds taken in the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC cannot be the cause much less sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of more than twelve years in filing such petition and to allow the same. It is her submission that admittedly the ex-parte decree came to the knowledge of the Opposite Party in the year 2016, when the mutation case was filed. Even thereafter, there is an unexplained delay of more than two years in filing the petition und