S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) BY this civil application prayer has been made by the applicant appellant for condonation of delay of 15 days caused in filing of first appeal against the judgment and decree passed on 15. 3. 1997 by the Joint Civil Judge (J. D) Surendranagar in special Civil Suit No. 260 of 1993. By the impugned judgment the learned Trial Judge had decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Direction was issued to applicant-appellant-plaintiff and respondents No. 2 and 3 (defendants No. 2 and 3) to remove the boundary wall which has been constructed on the land of the applicant-appellant-plaintiff within a period of six months, with consequential direction. In this civil application no reason, good, bad or indifferent, for this delay of 15 days caused in filing of the appeal has been furnised. What the applicant stated is that the delay has been caused for the reason that as per the internal practice of the office it took some days in obtaining permission from the competent authority. In this state it appers that Limitation Act has no concern and invariably all the appeals filed by the State Government, Union of India, District Panchayats, Corporations and Insurance Companies and even private litigants are barred by limitation. Only few cases are exception which are being presented in the Court within limitation. Be that as it may. ( 2 ) I have considered it to be proper to examine the merits of the matter also. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard on merits of the matter. As I do not find any merits in the appeal, for the reasons to be stated in the later part of this order, no useful purpose will be served otherwise also in case this delay caused in tiling the appeal is condoned ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 is admittedly a poor agriculturist and owner of agricultural land admeasuring 11 acres and 4 gunthas situated in village Navagam, Bearing Survey No. 11. He was carrying on agricultural activities on this land. In the year 1987 at the time of scarcity in the State the respondent State Government had started scarcity work. At that time the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 along with his family members, had gone to the thermal Power Station near Sevalia village for doing labour work, and he was staying there. In the year 1987 at the time of scarcity in the State the respondent State Government had started scarcity work. At that time the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 along with his family members, had gone to the thermal Power Station near Sevalia village for doing labour work, and he was staying there. In his absence, on his land, during the scarcity work 2 to 2-1/2 meter high, 15 to 20 feet wide and 400 feet long boundary has been constructed and the total area underneath this boundary is about 10 bighas. Further case of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 in the suit was that in connection with the scarcity work 4 to 5 feet deep and 30 to 35 feet wide pits were made in the land. While undertaking the aforesaid activities under the scarcity work, the State Government has spoiled or render considered area of the agricultural land of the plaintiff-repondent No. 1 uncultivable. The plaintiff respondent no. 1 had made grievance in the suit that because of the construction of boundary wall and the pits in the land the fertility of the land has also been considerably reduced. Details of reduction of fertility of the land has been given out by the plaintiff respondent No. 1. The suit has been filed as and indigent person, and prayer has been made therein for removal of the boundary wall an to develop/make the said land cultivable. Prayer has also been made for filling up all the pits dug out by the respondent State. Next prayer has been made for decree for damages to compensate the loss suffered by the plaintiff. The suit has been contested by the appellant-defendant. Despite service of summons of the suit the State has not filed any written statement. The Trial Court has framed as many as seven issues in the suit and ultimately under the impugned judgment and decree the suit has been decreed only to the extent the prayer for removal of boundary walls and filling up all the pits are concerned. No amount whatsoever has been award as damage. The Trial Court has framed as many as seven issues in the suit and ultimately under the impugned judgment and decree the suit has been decreed only to the extent the prayer for removal of boundary walls and filling up all the pits are concerned. No amount whatsoever has been award as damage. ( 4 ) ON the last date of hearing of this matter learned counsel for the appellant had given out that this wall has been consturcted at the instace of the State Government and the appellant, though has no objection for removal of the wall, it has to take permission of the State Government has to bear the expenses for the work of removal of the boundary wall. The matter has been adjourned by the Court to enable the appellant to take instructions from the State Government. But the learned counsel for the appellant has repeated the same difficulty in removal of the wall. Learned counsel for the appellant has been reminded of the fact that decree of the Trial Court is also against the State of Gujarat as the State of Gujarat is also one of the parties to the suit. Learned counsel for the State made only contention that the Trial Court has committed illegality in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 ( 5 ) HOWEVER, none of the counsel for the appellant or the State Government is in a position to say whether against this judgment the State Government of Gujarat has filed appeal before this Court. This judgment has been passed by the Trial Court on 15th march, 1997 and the limitation for filing the appeal against the same has already expired long back. Otherwise also the State Government has not contested the suit by filing written statement. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant I am of the considered opinion that the appeal has been filed only to see that the expenese to be incurred by the applicants for removal of the boundary wall are borne by the State Government. From the Judgment of the Trial Court I find that the appellant agreed to remove the boundary wall. Learned counsel for the appellant made reference to the documents produced on record at Exh. 32 and Exh. From the Judgment of the Trial Court I find that the appellant agreed to remove the boundary wall. Learned counsel for the appellant made reference to the documents produced on record at Exh. 32 and Exh. 35 from where finding of fact has been recorded that the appellant has requested the State Government to sanction necessary amount towards expenses for removal of the boundary wall. So the appellant was not opposing the prayer of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 for removal of the boundary wall. But it is only bothered about the expenses to be incurred by it, as according to the appellant the State Government is the authority who has to bear the expenses. If we go by the finding of the Trial Court and the documentary evidence Exh. 32 and 35, the appellant has in fact agreed to remove the boundary wall from the field of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. So it is a case where the judgment and decree of the Trial Court partakes the character of a consent decree qua the defendant-appellant. The dispute is only to the extent that the State Government has to bear the expenses for removal of the boundary wall. The decree is very specific and clear and the defendants are jointly and severally liable to remove the boundary wall. In view of this nature of the decree the grievance as projected in this appeal during the course of the argument by the learned counsel for the appellant is wholly without any substance. Otherwise also it is a matter between the appellant and respondent State government for which it is highly unjustified on the side of the appellant to have dragged a poor person in this litigation. ( 7 ) IN the result this civil application fails and the same is dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of the civil application the first appeal is also dismissed. The appellant is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as the cost of this litigation to respondent No. 1. .