The court ruled that significant delays in appeal applications require reasonable explanations, and negligence by State officers does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

This C.M. Application has been preferred with a prayer to condone the delay of 7050 days in preferring the appeal.

2. Before considering the application, it is pertinent to mention that the suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the plaintiff and numbered as OS No.2745/1998, which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 23.03.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dismissing the appeal, the plaintiff preferred AS No.78/2003, before the Sub Court, Thrissur, and by judgment dated 21.08.2004, the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. The point of dispute involved in the present suit is regarding the entitlement of the appellant State to make constructions over plaint ‘B’ schedule property lying in the eastern side of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and make alterations in the lie of the plaint schedule property. The judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court stood the test of time for nearly 18 years, and that, after a gap of 16 years, an execution petition was filed by the plaintiff since there was a deliberate attempt to flout the decree. It is at the said time that the present appeal is preferred.

3. The prime consideration of this Court in this application is whether the affidavit discloses a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Before delving into the principles governing the condonation of delay and what constitutes a sufficient cause, it is worthwhile to mention the crux of the averments in the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, it is admitted that by the judgment date 21.08.2004, the suit was decreed. But the main reason stated by the appellant is that the ‘Tahsilar’ was not impleaded in the suit, and therefore, the passing of the judgment and decree by the Appellate Court was not made known to them. According to the appellant, since the right of easement is claimed over the plaint ‘B’ schedule property, the ‘Tahsildar’ and ‘Village Officer’ are necessary parties to the suit. The entire records relating to the case were maintained with the ‘Tahsildar’ and ‘Village Officer’, and therefore the appellants were not in a position to ascertain the real facts.

4. Still further in paragraph 10, it is clearly admitted that the execution petition was filed during August 2021. It is further stated that only after getting a copy of the execution petition, the Assistant Engineer enquired about the proceedings in OS No.2745/1998 and found that, as against the judgment decree of the First Appellate Court, the State had not preferred any appeal. Since there was dereliction of duty on the part of the officers concerned, the appellants sought an explanation from the 19 Assistant Engineers, who worked in the respective stations from 2003 to 2020, and for that, the communications in respect of the aforesaid fact have also been produced. Immediately thereafter, on 22.04.2022, the Government Pleader attached to the District Court was approached with the request for legal opinion, and the same was forwarded to the District Collector and the Assistant Engineer received it after receipt of the same, forwarded to the District Collector on 06.06.2022. In the meantime, the facts were also sent before the Government Pleader attached to the Advocate General’s Office, and the same was scrutinised, and found that there is scope for preferring the appeal. It is also submitted that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to prefer the suit as well as the app