ORDER :

1. Twenty suits were filed by the respective Respondents in these special leave petitions in the year 2001 before the District Court, Bhopal claiming declaration of title in regard to their respective portions of Khasra No. 39/1 Kotra Sultanbad, Bhopal which in all admeasures 6.80 acres and for consequential permanent injunction.

2. The Plaintiffs in the twenty suits (respective Respondents in these SLPs) claimed that the said land originally belonged to one Shahida Bano who sold it to Hakim Hamidullah Kureshi on 28.5.1953; that it was inherited by his niece Razia Bano. They all traced their title to the said Razia Bano, under various sale deeds. The Petitioner resisted the said suits contending that the land was a part of a Government land adjoining a fishery area fenced and transferred to MP Fisheries Development Corporation, who in turn delivered it to the Petitioner in or about the year 1999. According to the Petitioner, the Respondents were encroachers of Government land. After, receiving the evidence let in by both sides and hearing arguments, the suits were decreed in the year 2002. However, on appeals by the Petitioner, by judgment dated 26.12.2004, the decrees were set aside and suits were remanded for fresh disposal within a fixed time frame. On such remand, the cases were listed for further evidence by the IV Addl. District Judge, Bhopal on 17.1.2005. The Petitioner was represented by its counsel up to 9.4.2005. The suits were adjourned to 4.5.2005 at the request of Petitioner by levying costs. From the next date of hearing viz. 4.5.2005, the Petitioner's counsel ceased to appear and Petitioner was represented by its officer-in-charge of the cases - Mr. Chandrakant Nikam, Assistant Engineer. But the said officer-in-charge also failed to appear during subsequent hearings and the costs levied were also not paid. Therefore the Petitioner (Defendant in the suits) was placed ex-parte on 2.7.2005, noting that the High Court had directed disposal within eight months, and Defendant was continuously absent. Thereafter the trial court, after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suits on 29.8.2005 by a detailed judgment.

3. On 16.6.2007, about one year and ten months later the Petitioner filed applications under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decrees. It was alleged by the Petitioner that its officers in the lower level had failed to discharge their duties and did not take action for defending the suits and that the Petitioner became aware of the ex-parte decrees only when one of the Plaintiffs submitted a representation dated 28.5.2007. The said applications filed by the Petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte decrees were dismissed on 29.8.2007. The appeals against the said dismissals were dismissed by the High Court on 16.5.2008. The Petitioner sought review and the review petitions were rejected on 23.7.2008. The Petitioner filed SL Ps which were also dismissed on 17.11.2008 with an observation that it was open to the Petitioner to urge its contentions before appropriate forum (as the Petitioner had by then filed appeals against the judgment dated 29.8.2005).

4. The regular appeals filed by the Petitioners on 31.7.2008, under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, against the decrees dated 29.8.2005 were heard and dismissed by the High Court on 5.12.2008, on the ground of 948 days delay in filing the appeals. The High Court also referred to the facts briefly, to avoid any failure of justice and found that the defence of the Petitioner was without any basis. Leave is sought in these special leave petitions to challenge the said judgments and decrees. On notice being issued, the Respondents have appeared and opposed grant of leave.

5. As noticed above, the only explanation given in the applications filed under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure for seeking condonation of delay was a vague statement that the officers at the lower level had failed to discharge their duties and had not t