Government authorities must file appeals within the prescribed period of limitation, and inordinate delay may not be condoned without sufficient and acceptable explanation.

ORDER : – This Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant/appellant – M. P. Housing Board, who happens to the instrumentality of the State, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt. 7-3-1998 passed by the Additional District Judge Datia (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 29A/1990, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16-11-1989 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Class II, Datia in Civil Suit No. 85-A/87, whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed.

2. Initially, the respondents/plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that they were entitled to allotment of residential plot @ Rs. 1.50 per sq.ft. and Housing Board had no power to enhance the price and had also prayed for an injunction that the Housing Board be restrained from allotting the residential plots to others. A detailed written statement was filed by the appellant/defendant denying the claim.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court recorded the evidence led by the parties and thereafter vide judgment and decree dated 16-11-1989 decreed the suit holding that the appellant/defendant shall allot the residential plot ad measuring 40 x 60 sq. ft. situated near the Bus Stand Datia @ Rs. 1.50 per sq. ft. in accordance with rules within a period of two months. Being aggrieved, the appellant/defendant preferred First Appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7-3-1998 on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved, the present Second Appeal has been filed with a delay of 6972 days.

4. I.A.No. 3154/2017, an application under section 5 of Limitation has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal.

5. This Court vide order dt. 25-7-2017 issued notice on the aforesaid application for condonation of delay.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has putforth the proposition that it is well settled in law that the Courts are not required to see the length of delay but has to see the sufficient cause. It is argued that in the present case the counsel for the appellant never advised to file the second appeal before the High Court and as the OIC of the case were regularly being transferred from Gwalior to other places and record was being kept by the dealing clerk, who subsequently died due to long illness, the appeal could not be filed. It is further submitted that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the approach of the Courts should be liberal, judicious and litigant should not be deprived of the decision on merits, as such, the delay in filing the second appeal deserves to be given a go bye.

7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Cantonment Board, Gwalior vs. M/s K. L. Kochar and Co. and another, reported in 2007 (I) MPJR 70, wherein it has been held that the Board is unknown regarding proceeding and award of Court as Advocate did not inform about proceedings. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Madina Begum and another vs. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 3554 and in Madhukar and others vs. Sangram and others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2171 and submitted that not only the question of limitation is to be considered while deciding the delay aspect but all other issues are also required to be considered. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pyarelal vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2010 (II) MPJR 10, wherein it has been held that the Court should remain cautious at the time of ascertaining whether delay was caused as a result of skillful management of some individuals to commit public mischief. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, it is prayed that the delay in filing the second appeal is liable to be condoned.

8