The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in filing an appeal must be supported by 'sufficient cause' and should not lack bona fides in order to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit Arya, J.

1. IA No.19237/2017 is taken up for consideration.

2. This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh seeking condonation of delay of 2563 days in filing the instant second appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2010 passed by XXI Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 06/10.

3. Upon perusal of the explanation offered in this application, it appears that the appellant/State has actually misdirected itself in the matter of pursuing the remedy of second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State contends that the State Government had granted permission for filing second appeal on 27.12.2010 but the respondent/plaintiff had challenged that permission in the High Court filing writ petition vide WP No. 4391/2011. Though there was no interim order passed by the High Court but, the State Government waited the outcome thereof which stood disposed of on 05.12.2013.

5. The Collector since has passed the order dated 27.01.2014 on the pending application of the respondent/plaintiff filed under Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. This order was again challenged by the respondent/plaintiff by filing separate writ petition i.e. WP No. 2335/2014 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.04.2014. Thereafter, the State Government has taken steps for filing the instant second appeal.

6. Heard.

7. As regards meaning, scope and rationale of the law of limitation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by Lrs., Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another, (2008) 17 SCC 448 has held as under:

"26. Basically the laws of Limitation are founded on public policy. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol. 28, p. 266, para 605, the policy of the Limitation Acts is laid down as follows:

"605. Policy of the Limitation Acts.- The courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely,(i) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (ii) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute the stated claim, (iii) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence."

27. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as 'statutes of peace'. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. This court in Rajender Singh and others vs. Santa Singh and others [(1973) 2 SCC 705] has observed: (SCC p. 712, para 18)

"18. The object of law of Limitation is to prevent disturbance and deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches".

28. In Motichand vs. Munshi [AIR 1970 SC 898], this court observed that this principle is based on the maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time law of Limitation are a means to ensuring private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression.

29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy."

8. While dealing with the scope of jurisdiction under section 5 of the Limitation Act, as regards condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lanka Venkateshwarlu (dead) by L.Rs., Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2011) 4 SCC 363 has observed as under:

"19. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. At the out