Judgment:
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Srikakulam dated 4-2-1994 passed in I.A.No.316 of 1995 in un-registered A.S.GR.No.779 of 1994 in which the learned District Judge refused to condone the delay of 3659 days in preferring the appeal.
2. The respondent No. 1, who died and whose legal representatives have beenbrought on record as respondents 2 to 7 in this case was the plaintiff in the suit. His suit was decreed against the Government and the Tahsildar who are the petitioners herein on 29-12-1983 by the learned District Munsif (the then), Narasannapeta. An appeal against the said decree was sought to be filed in January, 1994 with a delay of 3659 days and hence a separate petition under Section 5 of the Limitation act was filed for condonation of that delay. The learned District Judge dismissed the said petition and the same is challenged in this revision petition.
3. The facts relating to this case may be stated briefly as follows :
The petitioners herein filed a petition to condone the delay of 3659 days in filing the appeal on the grounds that the delay is occasioned purely on account of the then Assistant Government Pleader, Narasannapeta, and that the then Assistant Government Pleader did not send the certified copies of judgment and decree in the suit even though a duty is caste upon him to send the certified copies of the decree and judgment along with his opinion and that he did not care to inform the result of the suit, and that after due correspondence the present Government Pleader obtained the certified copy of the decree and judgment and opined that there are valid grounds to prefer an appeal against the said judgment and decree and that the delay is occasioned partly due to administrative reasons and processing of papers officially and that the same is neither wilful nor intentional.
4. The respondents herein filed counter denying the allegations of the petitioners and stated that it is false to state that the delay is caused purely on account of laches on the part of the then Government Pleader and also denied that the then Government Pleader has not sent the certified copy of the judgment and decreeand he did not inform the result of the suit. The respondent stated that the petitioners had knowledge about the passing of the decree and judgment and that they filed the petition to harass him and to cause toss to him and that the reasons to condone the delay of 3659 are not tenable.
5. The order of the learned District Judge is challenged on the ground that the learned Judge has failed to apply the well settled principles as laid down by the various judgments of the Supreme Court in appreciating the reasons offered for condonation of delay and particularly in a case where the Government is a party.
6. The facts of the case as disclosed from the affidavit show that the appeal was filed with a delay of 3659 days. The reasons stated for this delay as stated in the affidavit of the Joint Collector filed in support of the petition appeared to be under two counts.
7. It is firstly stated that the then Assistant Government Pleader did not send certified copies of the decree and judgment along with his opinion as required by him as per his duties soon after the judgment was pronounced and that he did not even inform the result of the suit. It is stated that after correspondence with the present Assistant Government Pleader, he obtained certified copies of judgment and decree and gave his opinion that there are valid grounds for filing the appeal. Thus, it is said to have resulted in delay.
8. The second reason for delay is said to be due to administrative reasons and due to time required for processing papers officially.
9. On behalf of the respondent, a counter has been filed in the trial Court denying that the delay in filing the appeal was justified on both the grounds as stated on behalf of the petitioners.
10. The question for consideration is whether the learned District Judge committed any error or irregularity in holding that the petitioner did not succeed in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
11. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration points out with reference to various authorities that while considering the question of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act where the applicant is a Government, the Courts must take note of the fact that the Government is impersonal machinery and the decisions are taken at slow pace with red-tapism and as such some latitude must be shown. In this regard, the learned Government Pleader relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, : 2002(143)ELT249(SC) .
12. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, : (1987)ILLJ500SC , the Supreme Court held that white treating the applications for condonation of delay by the State Governments, the treatment similar to any other litigant must be accorded.
13. In the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M Krishnamurthy, : 2008(228)ELT162(SC) , the Supreme Court on the facts of that case held that the delay of 883 days in filing appeal was caused due to failure of the advocate to inform the appellant as well as his failure to take action, was satisfactorily explained and that the order of the High Court in revision setting aside the order of the trial Court was held to be not proper.
14. The learned District Judge while referring to the reason that there were laches on the part of the Assistant Government Pleader observed that the affidavit is silent as to during which period the then Assistant Government pleader, Mr. P.S. Prasad Raohad been working as such. The affidavit is silent as to when the successor of the then Asst. Government Pleader came to know about the decree and judgment and obtained certified copies of decree and judgment. The learned District Judge also observed that even assuming that the Assistant Government Pleader failed to inform about the judgment and decree of the lower Court, it was the duty of the petitioner to know about the result of the case. The learned District Judge found that it was not the case of the petitioners that they were not in touch with the then Assistant Government Pleader to know position of the case or to know the result of the case. As observed by the learned Judge, the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is silent on what date the present Assistant Government Pleader came to know about the passing of the judgment and decree in question. The learned District Judge noted that the petitioners applied for certified copies on 18-11-1993 and certified copies of the decree were made ready on 27-11-5993. Even after receiving the copy, the appeal was not filed immediately and filed the petition for the condonation of delay on 4-2-1994.
15. The learned District Judge has also pointed out that the Tahsildar, Narasannapeta was a party to the proceedings, even he did not care to find out the result of the case by contracting the Assistant Government Pleader who conducted the case in the lower Court. The learned District Judge observed that there is nothing in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner to indicate that inspite of their best efforts they could not know the result of the case till new Assistant Government Pleader informed about the decree and judgment of the lower Court. The learned District Judge also observed the omission on the part of the petitioners to file the correspondence between the Government Authorities and the Assistant Government Pleader to know whether the proceedings were diligently prosecuted.
16. On this view of the matter, the learned District Judge held that the petitioner had not made out sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. It may be repeated that in this case, there is a delay of about 10 years (3659 days).
17. Even after taking into account the observations of the Supreme Court about the way the Government functions as impersonal machinery and red tapism, the finding of the learned District Judge that this enormous delay remains unexplained cannot be found fault with. The condonation of delay is within the discretion of the Court before whom such a petition is filed. There is nothing in this case to show that learned District Judge committed any irregularity or impropriety in exercising his discretion. While exercising the powers of revision, I do not find any reason to set aside the order of the learned District Judge which is based on sound reasons.
18. In view of the above, this petition is fit to be and is hereby dismissed. But under the circumstances, no costs.