( 1. ) The Plaintiff-Petitioner has challenged in this Revision Petition an Order dated passed by the Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No. 21/05 on Date 30th June, 2006,whereby an application preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed and the appeal of the State Government has been entertained for its hearing against the judgment and Decree passed ex-parte by the Trial Court against the State Government on Date 13.7.1993 in Civil Suit No. 282/1992.

( 2. ) The Plaintiff Dataram and Pyarelal had filed a Civil Suit No. 282-A/92 seeking declaration of title and grant of permanent injunction in relation to land situated at Survey Number 853 having an area of 1 Bigha 15 Biswa and Survey Number 854 having an area of 6 Bigha 1 Biswa situated at Village Khureri, Tehsil and District Gwalior, on the ground that they are the Landless Agricultural Labourers, who are cultivating the suit land prior to Date 2.10.1984 and have acquired the Bhumiswami rights in terms of the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upyog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhumi Par Bhumi Swami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam").

( 3. ) The State of Madhya Pradesh was served as a Defendant in the Suit, but remained absent after service of summons, therefore, the Court passed an Order on Date 1.3.1990 to proceed ex parte against the State Government and after recording the evidence of the Plaintiffs, the trial Court had decreed the Suit on date 13.7.1993 by declaring the Plaintiffs to be the Bhumiswami of the suit land. The State Government preferred a First Appeal on date 26.9.2005 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 13.7.1993 alongwith an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation, wherein it was demonstrated that the State Officials were not having the knowledge of passing of the decree and claimed that when the plaintiffs applied for mutation of their names on date 26.8.2005, the Government Officials, could get the knowledge of the Civil Courts decree and after obtaining the Certified Copy of the judgment and decree on date 20.9.2005, the First Appeal Could be filed.

( 4. ) The plaintiffs objected to the application seeking condonation of delay, before the First Appellate Court, on several grounds that the mutation of the names was carried out by Tehsildar in the year 1994, whereafter, State of Madhya Pradesh had preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), which was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Order of mutation passed in favour of the Plaintiffs was set aside, whereafter a Second Appeal of the Plaintiffs was dismissed, however, a Revision preferred by the Plaintiffs before the Board of Revenue succeeded on date 7.9.2001, whereby the order of Tahsildar was restored and consequently the mutation carried out in the Revenue Records in the Year 1994 was found to be correctly carried out by the Board of Revenue. On the strength of this mutation litigation, the Plaintiffs had demonstrated before the First Appellate Court that the ground of seeking condonation of delay by the State Government, is contrary to record, however, the State Officials filed another Application seeking condonation of delay whereby the amended grounds were raised for seeking condonation of delay that the Collector, Gwalior, was not aware of the passing of the decree although pendency of the mutation litigation remained one of the ground, on the strength of which, the delay was sought to be condoned.

( 5. ) The First Appellate Court while dealing with the application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act prima- facie found that the entire land belong to the State Government and there exist sufficient reason to condone the delay, in view of the application being preferred with all bonafides, therefore the Appellate Court has allowed