JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. – This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 2.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.M.A. No. 388 of 2006 arising out of T.S. No. 428 of 1999. Though this is a Single Judge matter, while hearing W.P.(C) No.24284 of 2011, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the State that result of this writ application shall have a bearing on the result of above writ application. Therefore, we called for the records and heard both the writ applications together. Before examining the legality of the impugned order, it is necessary to look into the background of the case. Opposite party No.1 filed the said suit for declaration of right, title, interest, correction of R.O.R. and for permanent injunction. The suit was presented on 5.7.1999. On 18.1.2000 the learned Government Pleader filed a memo of appearance on behalf of the present petitioner and other Government Officials and also filed a petition for grant of time to submit written statement. Learned Civil Judge allowed time till 18.2.2000 for filing of the written statement. When the case was taken up on 18.2.2000, the learned Government Pleader did not take any step nor file written statement. When the case was called, the learned Government pleader was also absent. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge by order dated 18.2.2000 set the defendants ex parte including the present petitioner. Case was then posted to 17.10.2000. Notice on defendant No.4 was accepted as sufficient and he having not appeared or taken any step, he was also set ex parte and the case was again adjourned for service of notice on defendant No.5. By order dated 30.11.2000, the learned Civil Judge posted the suit to be taken up on 15.1.2001 for ex parte hearing having been targeted for early disposal by higher Court. The ex parte hearing could not be taken up as the plaintiff was not in a position to depose in Court being 81 years of age and a petition was filed under Order 26 Rule 1 CPC praying for issuance of commission for examination of the plaintiff and the said petition was allowed by order dated 17.4.2001. The ex parte hearing could not be taken up as the plaintiff was not in a position to depose in Court being 81 years of age and a petition was filed under Order 26 Rule 1 CPC praying for issuance of commission for examination of the plaintiff and the said petition was allowed by order dated 17.4.2001. The order dated 29.6.2001, shows that report and evidence recorded by the Pleader Commissioner were put up before the learned Civil Judge and the case was posted to 11.7.2001 for ex parte judgment. On 13.7.2001, the ex parte judgment and decree were passed in the said suit. 2. As is evident from the dates, even though the petitioner and the other Government Officials, namely, defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 in the suit had been set ex parte on 18.2.2000, no steps whatsoever were taken by anyone of them to get the said order set aside till the ex parte judgment was delivered on 13.7.2001, almost one and half years thereafter. The order sheet also shows that the case was taken up on several dates in between but no steps were taken on behalf of the petitioner and the other defendants. Even after the ex parte judgment was delivered on 13.7.2001, application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed on 1.2.2003. Thus, there was long delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. The petitioner therefore filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay. The said application having been rejected in the impugned order, this writ application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State-petitioner submitted that only on 5.2.2002, the petitioner came to know from the Revenue Inspector of the department that the plaintiff is forcibly attempting to raise construction over the suit land through his agent and on inquiry, the agent of the plaintiff showed a copy of the ex parte judgment and decree passed in the said suit. After getting this information from the Revenue Inspector, it was ascertained from the Government Pleader that the ex parte judgment and decree had been passed on 13.7.2001. After getting this information from the Revenue Inspector, it was ascertained from the Government Pleader that the ex parte judgment and decree had been passed on 13.7.2001. The petitioner thereafter immediately moved the file in the department for obtaining necessary approval from the authorities to file an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and ultimately after obtaining approval, application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed on 1.2.2003. According to the learned counsel for the State-petitioner, delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was not deliberate. The petitioner had no knowledge about passing of the ex parte judgment and decree in the said suit and had taken steps immediately after he was informed about the same by the Revenue Inspector on 5.2.2002. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the State prayed for allowing the writ application and condoning the delay in filing the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. Ms. Agrawala, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party No.1 submitted that the Government Pleader, who was appearing in the suit, did not take any step after 18.2.2000 for almost one and half years and ex parte judgment was delivered on 13.7.2001. Even thereafter also steps were not taken to file an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC and only on 1.2.2003, the said petition was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. According to the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party No.1, the reasons assigned by the learned Civil Judge while rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should not be interfered with. Following dates are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue: "5.7.1999 – The suit was filed. 18.1.2000 – Government pleader entered appearance on behalf of defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 (including the petitioner) and prayed for time to submit written statement. Time was allowed till 18.2.2000 for filing of written statement. 18.2.2000 – No steps were taken by them and the Government Pleader was also absent on call. Accordingly, the said defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 were set ex parte. 13.7.2001 – The ex parte judgment and decree were passed. 1.2.2003 – Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed for setting aside the ex parte decree. 4. 18.2.2000 – No steps were taken by them and the Government Pleader was also absent on call. Accordingly, the said defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 were set ex parte. 13.7.2001 – The ex parte judgment and decree were passed. 1.2.2003 – Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed for setting aside the ex parte decree. 4. On perusal of the order sheet, we find that on 18.2.2000, even though defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 including the petitioner had been set ex parte, no steps had been taken by the Government Pleader thereafter to get the said order set aside. No written statement was also filed on behalf of the said defendants and ultimately an ex parte judgment was delivered on 13.7.2001. Even after the ex parte judgment and decree were delivered on 13.7.2001, no steps were taken by the petitioner and other defendants and only on 1.2.2003, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The conduct of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioner and other Government Officials clearly shows that after 18.2.2000, no steps had been taken and they were utterly negligent in contesting the suit. The petition under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed on 1.2.2003 and other application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of around eighteen months was filed on the following ground. The ground taken in the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking for condonation of delay is quoted below. "That the petitioner on dated 5.2.2002 came to know from Revenue Inspector of Department that the Opposite party No.1 forcibly attempted to raise the construction over the suit land through his agent and hired labour and on enquiring the agent on behalf of the opposite party show the copy of ex parte judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 428 of 1999. Thereafter the Revenue Inspector informed the mater to the petitioner and accordingly petitioner through Additional Land Officer and Government Pleader ascertained that the ex parte judgment and decree has been passed in T.S. No. 428 of 1999 on dated 13.7.2001. Thereafter the Revenue Inspector informed the mater to the petitioner and accordingly petitioner through Additional Land Officer and Government Pleader ascertained that the ex parte judgment and decree has been passed in T.S. No. 428 of 1999 on dated 13.7.2001. Thereafter petitioner immediately moved the file in Departmen1 for obtaining necessary approval from the authorities to file application for setting aside the ex parte decree. That while moving the file in Department through different section, from table to table and meeting the queries of different authorities the matter was delayed in obtaining the necessary approval. That in the official course of business the legal file of the Administrative Department moved to the Law Department for obtaining sanction for filing case and also for sanction of legal expenses for filing case. That while moving the file through different Department the matter was delayed: That the petitioner after obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority filed an application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.428 of 1999 before this Hon'ble Court." 5. The learned Civil Judge took note of the above ground taken in the petition, referred to several decisions and with a reasoned order, rejected the petition. As stated earlier, during pendency of the suit even after being set ex parte, no steps were taken by the petitioner and other defendants or the Government Pleader to get the ex parte order set aside till the suit was decreed ex parte. Even though the suit was set ex parte on 13.7.2001, no steps were taken by the petitioner and other defendants as well as the learned Government Pleader till February 2003 and only on 1.2.2003, application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Nripen Sarma reported in AIR 2011 SC 1237 . In the said reported case, the Union of India filed a writ appeal before a Division Bench of Gowahati High Court wherein there was delay of 239 days in filing the appeal. The ground taken in the writ application for condonation of delay was that it took some time for Union of India to decide as to whether a writ appeal should be filed or not. The ground taken in the writ application for condonation of delay was that it took some time for Union of India to decide as to whether a writ appeal should be filed or not. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation and the matter was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court. While filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was also delay of 114 days and while dismissing the appeal, in paragraph-6 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "The Union of India, ought to have been careful particularly in filing this Civil Appeal because the Division Bench, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal before it on the ground of delay. It is a matter of deep anguish and distress that majority of the matters filed by the Union of India are hopelessly barred by limitation and no satisfactory explanations exist for condoning inordinate delay in filing those cases." Reference may also be made to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by L.Rs. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1199. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs-24 and 25 of the judgment observed as follows: "Having recorded the aforesaid conclusions, the High Court proceeded to condone the delay. In our opinion, such a course was not open to the High Court, given the pathetic explanation offered by the respondents in the application seeking condonation of delay. This is especially so in view of the remarks made by the High Court about the delay being caused by the inefficiency and ineptitude of the government pleaders. The displeasure of the Court is patently apparent from the impugned order itself. In the opening paragraph of the impugned order the High Court has, rather sarcastically, dubbed the government pleaders as without merit and ability. Such an insinuation is clearly discernible from the observation that "This is a classic case, how the learned government pleaders appointed on the basis of merit and ability (emphasis supplied) are discharging their function protecting the interest of their clients." Having said so, the High Court, graphically narrated the clear dereliction of duty by the concerned government pleaders in not pursuing the appeal before the High Court diligently. The High Court has set out the different stages at which the government pleaders had exhibited almost culpable negligence in performance of their duties. The High Court found the justification given by the government pleaders to be unacceptable. Twice in the impugned order, it was recorded that in the normal course, the applications would have been thrown out without having a second thought in the matter. Having recorded such conclusions, inexplicably, the High Court proceeds to condone the unconscionable delay. 6. On examination of the fact involved in the said reported case, we find that this case is no way different than the said reported case. As indicated earlier as well as in the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge, there was gross negligence on the part of the defendants including the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in taking steps in the suit as well as in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. 7. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge in refusing to condone the long delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. The writ application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. B.K. MISRA, J. I agree. Application dismissed.