Government not entitled to condone inordinate delay in appeals due to administrative negligence or official duties.

COMMON ORDER

This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of

7374 days in filing the second appeal.

2. It is seen from the records that the father of the respondent, namely, Madhanagiriyappa filed a suit in O.S.No.127 of 1997 on the file of Sub Court, Hosur seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. The said suit was partly decreed in favour of the respondent’s father, granting decree for permanent injunction and the prayer for declaration was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner’s father filed first appeal in A.S.No.35 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri at Dharmapuri. The first appellate court granted decree, declaring the title of the respondent’s father. Therefore, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent’s father was decreed in toto.

3. A perusal of records shows that the judgment and decree in A.S.No.35 of 2004 were delivered on 29.07.2005 by the first appellate court, however, the petitioners filed copy application only on 10.11.2025 and the same was made ready on 14.11.2025. Subsequently, the second appeal was filed only on 02.02.2026 with a delay of 7374 days, along with this petition to condone such delay.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, sworn by the second petitioner, it was stated that all the records relating to the first appeal preferred by the respondent were not at all available in the office of the petitioners and hence, they could not prefer the second appeal immediately, as the second petitioner was engaged with various official duties.

5. It is seen from the records that the 2^nd petitioner , the present Tahsildar has sworn the affidavit. Merely because he is engaged with onerous official responsibilities, he cannot seek a different time limit for filing the second appeal. The Limitation Act is applicable to all the persons, including the State. The government cannot seek a different yardstick and expect the court to condone huge delays on the vague allegations that the officials are engaged with onerous official responsibilities.

6. In Office of the Chief Post Master General and others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another reported in 2012 SCC Online SC 1234, the Apex Court has categorically held that the administrative reasons cannot be the grounds to condone delay. The relevant observations reads as follows:

“ 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

7.We cannot apply different yardstick to the government in the matter of condoning delay. In the absence of any provisions in the Limitation Act, prescribing a longer period for government to file appeal, this court is not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 7374 days in filing the second appeal on the vague allegations that the second petitioner, as a Tahsildar is engaged in various responsibilities and therefore, the second appeal could not be filed in time. It is also seen from the affidavit that the respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12897 of 2021 seeking is