By the Court.—This defective first appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2009/9.4.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar in L.A. R. No. 387 of 1991.The Stamp Reporter has reported delay and laches of 7 years and 58 days in filing the appeal. A delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by the affidavit has also been moved.

2. The case set up by the appellant in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application states as under :

“That in reference No. 387 of 1991 the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar has finally allowed the reference vide order dated 28.3.2009. It is not clear from the available records of the department that as to why the then Jiledar Court case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar Mr. Banni Singh, has not taken appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the execution proceedings having No. 13 of 2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar, as such, an explanation was sought from him on 29.10.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court a copy of show-cause dated 29.10.2015 issued to the then Jiledar is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit.”

3. In rest of the paragraphs of the affidavit, the appellant has tried to explain the delay after 29.10.2015. From a perusal of the pleadings, we do not find any justifiable and acceptable explanation for the period 2009 to 29.10.2015 when the alleged notice to the then Jiledar Court case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar has been issued requiring him to show-cause why the appeal was not preferred within time and he was required to submit explanation within a week. Even though almost one year has passed but there is not even a whisper with respect to any reply submitted by him nor there is any averment in respect of any proceedings having been initiated against him for alleged lapses. The appellant has not even cared to disclose the present status of the then Jiledar as to whether he is still in employment or has retired and in what manner the notice was served upon him. In the absence of these allegations, it is hard to place reliance on the veracity of the said notice and it appears that after discovering the fact that no appeal has been preferred, a simple notice was issued mechanically for the purpose of initiating the process of filing the appeal and explaining the delay.

4. It is well-settled that the law of limitation is based on public policy to ensure that the litigants approach the Court without any unreasonable delay. At the same time, the Courts have been vested with the power to condone the delay on showing sufficient cause. The Court has to maintain balance while adopting liberal justice oriented approach. It is to be borne in mind that the successful litigant has acquired rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and has spent time in pursuing the litigation. The view taken by us finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, JT 2012 (4) SC 55.

5. Reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General and others v. Living Media India Ltd. and another, JT 2012(2) SC 483, laying down the principles to be taken into account while considering the delay condonation application filed on behalf of the Government bodies and its instrumentalities. The Hon’ble Apex Court while noticing the fact that a mechanical explanation is given that the file was kept pending for several months due to considerable degree of procedural requirements and such an explanation would not constitute a proper explanation for condoning the delay. After considering a series of earlier decisions rendered in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantna