Judgment : These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of common order dated 27-6-2011 in I.A.Nos.61 and 62 of 2007 in O.S.No.25/1997 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, and hence they are heard and being disposed of by this Common Order. Despite service of notice, no one appeared for the respondent. The petitioners are the judgment-debtors in the above mentioned suit filed by the respondent for recovery of mortgage amount. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 5-11-1998. The respondent filed an application for passing the final decree. It has filed I.A.No.61/2007 for condonation of delay of 1736 days in filing the said application for passing the final decree. As the original defendant died on 5-1-2000, the respondent filed another application for bringing on record petitioner Nos.2 to 5, as the legal representatives of the original defendant, as respondents, in the final decree proceedings. As there was a delay of 2588 days in filing the said application, the respondent filed I.A.No.62/2007 for condonation of the said delay. Both the applications were opposed by the petitioners. However the Court below has allowed the applications. Hence, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petitions invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the order passed by the lower Court would show that it has given a categorical finding that even though the Manager of the respondent-Bank who was in office at the time of filing the applications may not be negligent, there is negligence on the part of the respondent-Bank in filing the applications within a reasonable time. The lower Court has also rendered a conclusive finding that the delay in filing both the applications is abnormal. However, by a strange process of reasoning that since the respondent is a Bank and money belongs to the public, the lower Court has allowed the applications despite finding the respondent as being negligent in pursuing its cause. In my opinion, the whole approach of the lower Court is unsustainable. While it is true that in the case of public institutions some latitude in considering the applications for condonation of delay is to be shown, such latitude shall not lead to giving unfair advantage to one party over the other. In my opinion, the whole approach of the lower Court is unsustainable. While it is true that in the case of public institutions some latitude in considering the applications for condonation of delay is to be shown, such latitude shall not lead to giving unfair advantage to one party over the other. No reasons worth considering were putforth by the respondent-Bank for condoning such huge delays of 1736 and 2588 days, in filing the applications for passing the final decree and bringing on record the petitioners as the legal representatives of the sole deceased defendant, respectively. In the absence of any plausible explanation, condoning such huge delays on the ground that the respondent is a Nationalised Bank and that the money belongs to the public, leads to patently discriminatory treatment between the parties to the litigation. This kind of unwarranted latitude would also encourage complacency on the part of the public servants in pursuing litigation. Having slept over the matter for years on end, the respondent cannot wake up suddenly and file the applications for condoning such huge delays. The respondent cannot use its position of being a public institution, as a façade for condonation of inordinate delays in the absence of any plausible explanation forthcoming from its end. For the above mentioned reasons, the order under the revisions is set-aside. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly allowed. As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.No.6838/2011 in C.R.P.No.4821/2011 is disposed of as infructuous.