JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1898 days in filing the present appeal. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the present appeal should be treated within limitation as the review petition was dismissed on 16.10.1997 and the appeal was being filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 2. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition dated 8.9.1992 allowing the same filed by the respondents herein. 3. The Additional Advocate General submits that the State preferred a review petition before the learned Single Judge which has been disposed of on 16.10.1997. The State Government made an application for obtaining certified copy on 17.10.1997 and the same was furnished on 22.10.1997. The appeal was submitted on 19.11.1997 which is within the period of limitation. 4. This appeal was opposed by filing reply stating that no reasons were given by the State to condone the delay of 1898 days and since the special appeal in question arises out of the petition filed in the year 1984 and since then state did not take any steps for contesting the writ petition or the orders passed therein, the State cannot seek condonation of delay on the ground that despite repeated opportunities and repeated notices being served for a period of more than 7 years, they demonstrated absolute negligence by neither appointing any officer-in-charge nor filing the writ petition, nor seeking to contest the said writ petition. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. In our opinion, the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General has merit in this case. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 8.9.1992 and the review application was made before the learned Single Judge who dismissed the same on merits on 16.10.1997. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.10.1997 in review petition reads as under : "Tile appellant, State of Rajasthan has filed this application for recalling/modification of the order passed by this Court on 8.9.1992. The application has been filed on 15.2.1996. After hearing Mr. Bhandari, Addl. Advocate General at length, I find no ground for recalling the order 8.9.1992 at this stage. Moreover, when no satisfactory reasons have been given by the applicant in the application. The application has been filed on 15.2.1996. After hearing Mr. Bhandari, Addl. Advocate General at length, I find no ground for recalling the order 8.9.1992 at this stage. Moreover, when no satisfactory reasons have been given by the applicant in the application. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed as having no merits." 6. A perusal of the above order would go to show that the learned Single Judge did not find any ground for recalling the order dated 8.9.1992 and that no satisfactory reasons have been given by the applicant in the application for recalling the order. This is also seen in the order that this review petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge after hearing Shri A.K. Bhandari for the petitioner and Shri Vijay Singh, counsel for the respondents. The learned Single Judge had clearly found that no ground of recalling the order has been made out. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in the review petition is, therefore, an order on merits. In such circumstances, the period from the date of pronouncement of the judgment by the learned Single Judge in the main case, namely, 8.9.1992 till disposal of the review petition namely of 16.10.1997 in our opinion, is excludable in computing the period of limtiation for filing Letters Patent Appeal. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Manipur & Ors v. All Manipur Regular Post Vacancies S. T.A. & Ors., (1997) 10 SCC 385 took the same view. In that case a common judgment dated 15.12.1992 was passed by the learned single Judge of Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court. The State of Manipur filed the review petition in the month of August, 1994 pleading for condonation of delay in moving the Court in review. The learned Single Judge condoned the delay and then sent on to decide the review petition on merits. Finally, the same were dismissed on 20.9.1994. On request made by the learned counsel for the State Government on the prospect of appeals being filed, 15 days' time was granted by the learned Single Judge to file Letters Patent Appeals. The State filed Letters Patent Appeals within the time granted by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Bench objected to the learned Single Judge's encroachment on their appellate powers to condone or not to condone the delay. The State filed Letters Patent Appeals within the time granted by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Bench objected to the learned Single Judge's encroachment on their appellate powers to condone or not to condone the delay. The Letters Patent Bench declined to condone the delay and dismissed the Letters Patent appeals as belated. This has given cause to the State of Manipur and other parties to prefer the special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed in paragraph No. 3 in that case as follows: "3. We have heard learned counsel. It is noteworthy and not open to any objection that the learned Single Judge was entitled to condone the delay in filing the review petitions before him. That was an aspect over which the Letters Patent Bench had no control at the stage it was. Once it is held that the learned Single Judge was entitled to condone the delay in entertaining the review petitions, then the entire period starting from the day when the judgment was pronounced by the learned Single Judge in the main case till the disposal of the review petitions was a period will spent which had to be deducted when computing the period of limitation due for filing Letters Patent Appeals. The adverse comment attracted by the learned Single Judge from the Letters Patent Bench in allotting 15 days' time to the State of Manipur and others to appeal against the orders may well be deserved but the fact remains that the time prior thereto had to be deducted towards computation of limitation. It is stated at the Bar that the period of limitation prescribed for filing the Letters Patent appeal was 30 days from the date of the order. On the above analysis of facts the appellants were obviously within limitation. In any case the delay had appropriately been explained. For these reasons we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and request it to ignore the delay, if any, and entertain the appeals in order to decide them on their merit. We further request the High Court to dispose them of most expeditiously after hearing both parties as the judgment of the learned Single Judge affects a large number of persons." 8. We further request the High Court to dispose them of most expeditiously after hearing both parties as the judgment of the learned Single Judge affects a large number of persons." 8. It is thus, seen from the above judgment that when the learned Single Judge was entitled to condone the delay in entertaining the review petitions, then the entire period starting from the date when the judgment was pronounced by the learned Single in the main case till the disposal of the review petitions was a period well spent which had been deducted when computing the period of limitation due for filing the Letter Patent Appeals. 9. In view of the above pronouncement of the Supreme Court the period from the date of pronouncement of the judgment by the learned Single Judge in the main case till the disposal of the review petition is excludable in computing the period of limitation for filing Letters Patent Appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and take the appeal on file for hearing for admission. 10. List this case in the second week of July, 2001 for admission.Application Allowed. *******