RSA No. 502 of 2006

RSA No. 502 of 2006

and

Misc. Case No. 55 of 2007

5. 19.1.2016 1. Heard the learned Additional Government Advoca

te.

Perused the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condona

tion of delay.

2. The appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed b

y the learned Addl. District Judge, Rayagada in Title Appeal No. 8/03. The judgment having bee

n passed on 30.6.2005, the memorandum of appeal has been presented on 27.10.2006 and thus ther

e has been a delay of 449 days in filing this appeal.

3. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate reiterating the averments made in the pet

ition submits that the delay has occasioned in the process of compliance of the official forma

lities for taking the decision in ultimately filing the appeal which is usually taken by the S

tate in every such matter. Here the delay is for a considerable period and the plaintiff-respo

ndent in the meantime has been enjoying the status of successful litigant for more than a deca

de.

In view of the lapse of time intervention of the innocent third party

in respect of the subject matter of the suit is also altogether not ruled out.

4. It further appears that the learned Govt. pleader who has conducting t

he appeal on behalf of the State had immediately informed the officials of the State as regard

s the disposal of the appeal and its result but the matter appears to have caused no such ripp

les in the official level showing any anxiety for challenging the judgment and decree passed a

gainst the State. The subject matter of the suit is the land measuring Ac.0.02 dec. and both t

he courts below have concurrently found the plaintiff to have acquired title by adverse posses

sion which is a finding of fact.

The utter negligence in the matter of pursuing the litigation on behal

f of the appellant is well apparent and the State for the purpose in the facts and circumstanc

es, cannot be visited with different treatment which on its face would be highly prejudicial t

o the interest of the respondent. The explanation given for such long delay is per se not acce

ptable.

5. In view of aforesaid, the application for condonation of delay stands

rejected.

The Misc. Case is dismissed.

In view of the above order, RSA No. 502 of 2006 stands dismissed.

..

D.Dash, J.

Aks