JUDGMENT

1. I.A. No.3701/24 has been filed by appellant-Corporation under section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 5258 days in filing this appeal.

2. The judgment & decree questioned in this appeal was passed by learned First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No.41-A of 2008 on 17.9.2009 whereby the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by respondents/plaintiffs was decreed. The instant appeal has been filed on 24.5.2024 i.e. after more than fourteen and half years and seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the application under consideration is filed.

3. For convenience, the parties in this order are referred as plaintiff and defendants as per their respective status in civil suit.

4. The facts in short giving rise to the instant litigation are that the plaintiff- Mohanlal Saraf Memorial Charitable Trust, Murar, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trust’) is a private charitable trust. The object of constitution of Trust is to provide medical facilities to public in general. As per the plaintiff’s case, the suit property situated on part of Survey No.2916 bearing House No.23/188, Mall Road, Murar, was initially owned and possessed by Madhya Bharatiya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Bhopal and the Trust has obtained the same on lease for a period of 99 years vide registered lease deed, dated 14.9.1998. However, vide its resolution, dated 12.10.1999, the defendant Corporation held suit property to be Municipal/Government property. It is alleged by plaintiff that no notice was given to it before taking aforesaid action and it was asked to hand over possession of suit property. The declaration was, therefore, sought to the effect that the Trust is having lease hold rights acquired from Madhya Bhartiya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Bhopal. It also sought decree of confirmation of its possession over suit property and also for a decree of permanent injunction.

5. On summons being issued, the defendant No.1 & 2 (Government officials) and defendant No.3 (appellant Corporation) entered appearance through their respective lawyers. The case was adjourned several times for filing of written statement and reply to application for grant of temporary injunction by defendants. On 2.11.2006, the counsel for defendant Corporation stated that they don’t want to file reply to application for temporary injunction. However, later on, on 12.12.2006, reply to said application was filed, though written statement was not filed. The defendant No.1 & 2 filed their written statement on 17.7.2007. After the plaintiff’s evidence was over, the case was fixed for defendants’ evidence. The defendant No.1 & 2 examined one witness in support of their case. However, no evidence was led by defendant Corporation even though several opportunities were granted for this purpose. Ultimately, on 7.9.2009, the defendant Corporation’s right to lead evidence was closed by the Court. The impugned judgment & decree was passed by learned trial Court on 17.9.2009.

6. It is thus seen that, even though it was continuously represented through its lawyer in the proceedings before learned trial Court, the defendant Corporation has not filed its written statement and/or led any evidence in support of its case. The instant appeal was filed on 24.5.2024 i.e. after the delay of 5258 days. The reason assigned in the application seeking condonation of delay is the traditional one i.e. its counsel did not inform about passing of impugned judgment & decree. It is stated in the application for condonation of delay that the Trust, for the first time, filed the application for mutation of its name on the basis of impugned judgment on 9.10.2023, alongwith a copy of order passed by this Court in W.P. No.13178 of 2023. Thus, as per the averments made in the application, the defendant Corporation acquired knowledge of impugned judgment & decree on 9.10.2023 and, thereafter, after obtaining legal opinion and completing