P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against an order dated 14-11-1996 passed in I. A. No. 96 of 1995 in O. S. No. 43 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, nizamabad. ( 2 ) THE application I. A. No. 96 of 1995 in O. S. No. 43 of 1990 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Nizamabad was filed by the revision petitioners who are defendants 3 to 5 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1368 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 4-4-1991 in O. S. No. 43 of 1990. The court below, after considering all the contentions raised by both parties, had dismissed the application and aggrieved by the same the present revision petition is filed. The main ground which was urged by the Government was that the then government Pleader acted indifferently and did not take any interest in Government cases which resulted in dismissals and ex parte decisions against the Government and the Mandal Revenue Office came to know about the same during the period of filing the present application about the passing of the said ex parte decree and consequently since the Government came to know about the same the Government had decided to file an application to set aside the ex parte decree and inasmuch as there was delay of 1368 days an application to condone the delay also was filed along with application to set aside the ex parte decree. It was also stated that there was no fault on the part of the Government in not filing the written statement and the Government filed a complaint against the then Government pleader before the Bar Council of Andhra pradesh for his attitude and acts which resulted in dismissal of cases and ex parte decisions against the Government and the bar Council of Andhra Pradesh after detailed enquiry suspended the then Government pleader from practising as an advocate for a period of three months and hence it was prayed that the delay has to be condoned and the ex parte decree passed is to be set aside. The application filed for condonation of delay by the petitioners was opposed by the respondent. The application filed for condonation of delay by the petitioners was opposed by the respondent. ( 3 ) FROM the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that there is serious negligence on the part of the Government and also officials representing the government. Be that as it may, it is pertinent to note that the ex parte decree was passed on 4-4-1991 and the petition was filed on 2-2-1995. In fact, the Court below had observed that the delay calculated will be 1397 days but not 1368 days. Hence it cannot be said that the inordinate delay was explained by the revision petitioners. ( 4 ) MR. T. Rajasekar Rao representing the petitioners had contended that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, inasmuch as the concerned Government pleader also was punished for the misconduct by the Bar Council of A. P. , it is a fit case where discretion has to be exercised for condoning the delay and the petitioners in the interest of justice must be given an opportunity of contesting the matter. It may be that the Government Pleader, who was in-charge of these affairs at the relevant time had been negligent and had not been properly defending the Government cases. But unfortunately that itself cannot be a ground for condoning the inordinate delay. Furthermore, the explanation given by the petitioners cannot be believed since it cannot be taken for granted that all the Government officials concerned with these affairs were put in darkness for such a long time. If the officials are on the erring side it is for the government to take appropriate action in this regard. ( 5 ) IT is needless to mention that the doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants including the State as litigant are accorded the same treatment and the law is administrated in an evenhanded manner. In Collector Land Acquisition, anantnag v. Messrs Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 , at para 3 the Apex Court had observed as follows: "the fact that it was the State which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants including the State as litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an evenhanded manner. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants including the State as litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an evenhanded manner. There is no warrant, for according a stepmotherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact on account of an impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note making, file pushing and passing on the buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non grata status. So also the approach of the courts must be to do evenhanded justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. The dismissal of the appeal filed by the State government against the decision substantially enhancing compensation for the land acquired and which also raised important questions as regards principles of valuation, as time barred being four days beyond time was not proper. " in New India Assurance Company Limited v. G. Sarada Prasad, 2001 (2) ALD 161 = 2001 (2) alt 100 , it was held that even if the law of limitation affects the party harshly it has to be applied with all its rigour when sufficient cause is not shown. In Warangal municipal Corporation, Warangal v. Penugodu Alias Penugoda Aslesha, 1999 (6) ALT 247 , it was observed as follows : "i am quite conscious of the fact that the courts are relatively liberal while dealing with the applications to condone the delay particularly when such applications are filed by the State and State authorities, statutory corporations, local bodies etc. But here is a case where the facts narrated above clearly go to show that there was culpable negligence on the part of the officers of the Municipal corporation occupying important position in it to defend the corporation. As if that is not enough, the affidavit filed in support of i. A. No. 580 of 1999 falsely claims that the deponent of the affidavit came to know about the passing of the decree only one day before filing of the application. I should state that this conduct itself should disentitle the petitioner to any relief at the hands of this court. I should state that this conduct itself should disentitle the petitioner to any relief at the hands of this court. If the corporation has suffered any loss on account of the negligence of the concerned officers and the staff, it may proceed against them in accordance with law and recover the loss or damage suffered by it, but there is no justifiable ground particularly at this distance of time to interfere with the matter. It is stated that the husband of the first plaintiff died as far back as in the year 1992 and the defendants (sic. respondents) including the widow of the deceased remain to be unemployed and without any other source of livelihood. Looking from that angle also, any interferences is not warranted. " in P. K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, air 1998 SC 2276 , the Apex Court had clearly stated as follows :"the law of limitation may harshly affect the particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribed and the Courts have no power to extend period of limitation. " ( 6 ) IN the light of the discussion above, and the facts and circumstances of the case and also the legal position it cannot be said that the inordinate delay was explained by the petitioners and hence it has to be observed that the sufficient cause for condonation of delay had not been explained properly by the petitioners and hence the civil revision petition has no merits and it is dismissed accordingly but however without costs.