The court has the discretion to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if sufficient cause is shown, and this discretion should be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision has been preferred against the order dt. 27-2-1986 by which the IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur City, has allowed the application condoning the delay occasioned in filing the appeal.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that a suit was filed by one Gur Prasad, later on substituted by the present applicant Smt. Laxmi Devi, for granting a decree of permanent injunction restraining the State of U. P. and others from interfering with her peaceful possession of the land. The suit was decreed by the learned additional Munsif, Kanpur City vide his judgement and decree dt. 26-3-1984. Copies of the judgement and decree were applied by the opposite parties on 28-3-1984. Such copies were ready on 23-4-1984 and were delivered on 24-4-1984. The appeal along with an application for the condonation of delay under S. 5. Limitation Act, was filed on 14-12-1984. A delay of 205 days which was caused was thus sought to be condoned. The court below while exercising powers under S. 5, Limitation Act, found the reason sufficient in not preferring the appeal within time and condoned the delay. It was alleged that in fact the delay was caused in view of the exchange of the correspondence between the District Government Counsel, the Forest Department and the judicial department of the State Government. A detailed affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay has been annexed as annexure-1 to the stay application filed by the opposite parties. The affidavit filed by the opposite parties chronologically sets forth the reasons which caused the delay in filing the appeal. Learned IV Addl. District Judge, Kanpur (City) found the cause sufficient for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period. A discretion was exercised by the court below in allowing the application and condoning the delay in preferring the appeal beyond the time provided.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved against the judgement and order dt. 27-2-1986 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur (City), the instant civil revision has been preferred by the plaintiff-applicant.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant and the learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties have been heard at some length.

( 5 ) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the court below exercised discretion illegally and the delay of 205 days so caused in preferring the appeal was not satisfactorily explained. The submission is without merit. It is difficult to interfere with the finding of fact in regard to the cause being sufficient which has been found to be one by the court below and thus exercising discretion in condoning the delay. The affidavit filed in support of the application under S. 5, Limitation Act, clearly shows that due caution and care was exercised by the opposite parties in preferring the appeal. A chronological statement clearly sets forth that all efforts were made by opposite party No. 2, (Forest Department) and sincere efforts were made to do the needful. It is true that no separate standard is provided for the State for determining the sufficiency of the cause but the State cannot be put on the same level as an individual and where delay has been occasioned then reasons for such a delay have to be considered liberally. The affidavit in support of the application under S. 5 of the Act clearly sets forth that immediate steps were taken for filing the appeal. The learned District Government Counsel was approached who required certain formalities to be achieved and on completion thereof the permission for fling of appeal was advised to be obtained. For filing the appeal the permission of the judicial department of State Government is necessary. No doubt some time was taken in such exchange of correspondence but the opposite parties acted with alt promptness in filing the appeal after such permission was accorded by the State Government. The court below found the reasons set forth