IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the State must provide a reasonable explanation for delays in legal proceedings, as the law of limitation applies equally to all parties.

ORDER :

(Hirdesh, J.) :

Heard on I. A. No. 3985 of 2020 which is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay. The delay is of 656 days.

2. Counsel for the appellants/State submits that the present appeal is delayed by 656 days. He submits that the above delay has been reasonably/sufficiently explained by the State. In the instant case, appellant is State and in Government machinery, processing of the case for appeal takes time, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. He has placed reliance over the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through legal representatives and others vs. Union of India and another, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531 to bolster his submissions.

3. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that appellants/State has not explained delay of 656 days. No documents in support of the averments made in the application has been filed, therefore, just because appellant is State, such huge delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. In this context, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment in the case of Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs. vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project and another, (2008) 17 SCC 448, State of Odisha (Vigilance) vs. Purna Chandra Kandi, SLP (Criminal) Diary No(s). 29657/2019. Hence, it is urged that application and consequently appeal be dismissed.

4. Admittedly, the present second appeal has been filed on 17-12-2020 challenging judgment and decree passed by 16th Additional District Judge, Indore on 21-8-2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2016.

5. It is apparent from the application and affidavits filed by the appellants that no documents, supporting the averments in the application/affidavits etc. have been filed.

6. In the instant case, State is involved, therefore, it would be appropriate to refer the principles regarding condonation of delay involving State.

7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Post Master General (supra) has held as under :—

“22. In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay vs. Amateur Riders Club, Bombay, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 603……….......................

After incorporating the above explanation, this Court refused to condone the delay by observing thus :

“3. ... .... Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is true that Government should not be treated as any other private litigant as, indeed, in the case of the former the decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged down by the proverbial red-tape. But there are limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its common interests. The affidavit is again one of the stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism that the Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to the need for promptitude even where it affects its own interest.”

(Emphasis supplied).

23. In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another, (2008) 17 SC 448, the question was whether the respondent-Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1724 days in filing appeals before the High Court. In para 17, this Court held :

“17.....The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The Court cannot inquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.

24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court obser