JUDGMENT : This revision application has been filed at the instance of plaintiff against the order dated 19-1-2010 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Chhattarpur in MJC No. 41/2007 whereby application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code of defendant-respondent has been allowed thereby restoring the Civil Suit No. 70-A/1995 (Ramesh Chandra Jain vs. State of M. P.) which was decreed in ex pane on 26-9-1996. 2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this revision since the point in dispute in this revision lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of certain immovable property which is the subject-matter of the suit and the description whereof is mentioned in the plaint was filed by the plaintiff-applicant in the trial Court. Despite the respondent-defendant was served and appearance was made on each and every date by the Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the State ultimately he did not appear and thus suit was decreed in exparte on 26-9-1996. 3. After more than 10 years and 6 months, an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code was filed by the defendant to set aside the ex parte decree on 17-4-2007. The only reason which has been assigned in the application is that the Collector of the District Chhattarpur was not served. Hence, it was prayed that application to set aside the ex parte decree be allowed and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 26-9-1996 be set aside and the suit be restored to its original number. 4. This application was vigorously opposed by the plaintiff-applicant by filing reply. The evidence was also recorded. The learned trial Court although found that sufficient reason has not been assigned by defendant-respondent in the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code but in the interest of justice the application was allowed and the ex parte judgment and decree was set aside and the suit was restored to its original number holding that the officer incharge was negligent. 5. In this manner this revision has been filed by the plaintiff-applicant before this Court. 6. 5. In this manner this revision has been filed by the plaintiff-applicant before this Court. 6. It has been put forth by Shri R. K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the applicant that the sole reason which has been assigned in the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code is that Collector of the District Chhattarpur was not served but this ground was not found to be sufficient in the impugned order and, therefore, when sufficient ground was not found it was incumbent upon the trial Court to dismiss the application. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed heavy reliance upon para 22 of the decision of Supreme Court Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012(4) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 1 = (2012) 5 SCC 157 . Learned counsel further submits that despite the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code was ex facie barred by time, no application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. Hence, it has been prayed that by allowing this revision application, the impugned order be set aside. 7. On the other hand Shri Sanotsh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for respondent argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that on account of fault of O.I.C. the delay occurred in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, since learned Court below in the interest of justice has allowed the application, the impugned order does not require any interference and, therefore, this revision deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision application deserves to be allowed. 9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to quote the application which has been filed under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code in verbatim which reads thus :- XXX XXX XXX The purpose of quoting the application in its entirety is that, the only reason which has been assigned in the application is that Collector of the District Chhattarpur was not served and, therefore, defendant was not aware about passing of the impugned judgment and decree and it came into the knowledge of the defendant only when the notice of execution was received on 12-3-2007. Eventually on 6-4-2007 the restoration application was filed. Eventually on 6-4-2007 the restoration application was filed. To me, the sole ground which has been raised is ex facie false and this Court do not expect such a false plea to be raised from the side of the Government. The applicant has filed certified copy of the Vakalatnama filed in civil suit in which Mr. T. P. Bhatele, Additional Government Pleader was authorized to conduct the case on behalf of State of M. P. and the Officer In-charge of the case who is Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Chhattarpur had signed the said Vakalatnama. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondent-defendant was not served with the summons of the suit. Thus, the ground which has been assigned in the application has not been materialized. On the contrary, it is proved that under a false pretext a concocted ground has been averred in the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. 10. That, apart, it would be germane to quote gist of order-sheets of the Civil Suit No. 70A/1995. The date 31-10-1995 was the first date in which learned trial Court ordered to issue notice to the defendant-State Government. On 20-11-1995 the Additional Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the defendant and filed memo of appearance and prayed time to submit reply of application of temporary injunction. The parties were directed to maintain status quo. The learned trial Court fixed the date 30-11-1995. On 30-11-1995 and on further dates time was sought throughout by the Additional Government Pleader to file reply of temporary injunction application as well as to file written-statement. However, despite the time was sought on 18-12-1995, 20-12-1995, 3-1-1996, 20-1-1996, 7-2-1996 and 8-3-1996 the written-statement was not filed and the matter was fixed for 26-3-1996. On 26-3-1996 also time was sought to file written-statement and reply of temporary injunction application. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing on 12-4-1996 and on this date again time was sought by learned Additional Government Pleader to file written-statement on the ground that all the Executive Officers are busy in conducting the Lok Sabha elections, therefore, it was prayed that the case be fixed for some other date. This prayer was vigorously opposed by learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant. Despite several opportunities were provided to the defendant-respondent even prior to the Lok Sabha elections could commence to file written-statement it was not filed. This prayer was vigorously opposed by learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant. Despite several opportunities were provided to the defendant-respondent even prior to the Lok Sabha elections could commence to file written-statement it was not filed. The learned trial Court by adopting a lenient view gave further time to file written-statement and the case was fixed for 15-5-1996. On 15-5-1996 the matter was taken up for hearing and again time was sought by the defendant-respondent to file written-statement which was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 30/- and the date of hearing 6-7-1996 was fixed. Again on 6-7-1996 the time was sought by defendant to file written-statement as well as to file reply of application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code. Ultimately, the learned trial Court directed and provided a last opportunity to the defendant-respondent to file written-statement failing which the suit will proceed under Order 8, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code and fixed the date of hearing 31-7-1996. On 31-7-1996 no instruction was pleaded by the Additional Government Pleader. Hence, the learned trial Court proceeded ex parts and after recording the evidence of plaintiff decreed the suit in ex pane on 26-9-1996. Hence, for several dates continuously time was sought by learned Additional Government Pleader for filing written-statement and reply of temporary injunction application. The purpose of writing the gist of these order-sheets is that not only sufficient opportunity but more than sufficient opportunities were provided to the defendant to file written-statement. However, despite it was well in the knowledge of the defendant-respondent that the suit was decided in ex. parte, no application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed well in time. 11. In order to substantiate the averments made in the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code one Bhagwant Singh Tomar who is Tahsildar of Naugaon District Chhattarpur was examined. In para 20 he has categorically admitted that in the proceedings initiated under section 248 of M. P. Land Revenue Code in Revenue Case No. 204A6/95-96 there is a reference of the order-sheet dated 12-4-1996 in which it has been mentioned by the then Tahsildar that photocopy of the plaint filed in Civil Suit No. 70-A/1995 has been filed and, therefore, the then Tahsildar stayed the proceedings of section 248 of the Land Revenue Code of his Court. Further it has been admitted by the Tahsildar in his cross-examination para 20 that again Tahsildar initiated proceedings to remove encroachment under section 248 of the Land Revenue Code and on 28-9-2006 the plaintiff Ramesh Chandra Jain filed written-statement in those proceedings and also filed certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in ex parte against the State on 26-9-1996. Despite it, nothing was done on behalf of the State Government to file application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. Hence, I am of the view that it was well in the knowledge of the State Government and even in the knowledge of the Collector that civil suit has been filed against the State and despite the State of M. P. was being represented through Additional Government Pleader, later on there was no appearance and the suit was decreed in ex pane long back on 26-9-1996. These are the other grounds in order to hold that the only reason which has been assigned in the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code that defendant-State Government was not served through Collector, becomes ex facie false. Indeed this false ground ought not to have been taken by the State. 12. The defendant was served with the summon of the suit and was being represented by Additional Government Pleader. The Vakalatnama was also filed on behalf of defendant in the suit. Hence, the prescribed period of limitation to file application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code was only 30 days under Article 123 of the Limitation Act. Admittedly, the application to set aside ex pane decree was not filed within 30 days from the date of passing of ex pane decree and was filed after more than 10 years and 6 months, therefore, the defendant-respondent was obliged to file application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. But, surprisingly despite there is delay of more than 10 years and 6 months, no application to condone the delay has been filed. This is an additional reason to reject the application of defendant-respondent to set aside the ex pane decree. 13. But, surprisingly despite there is delay of more than 10 years and 6 months, no application to condone the delay has been filed. This is an additional reason to reject the application of defendant-respondent to set aside the ex pane decree. 13. The Indian Limitation Act has been enacted on the phrase "Delay defeats equities" and the Maxim "Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation) and also equity aids the vigilant and not the dormant. Thus, the law of limitation is founded on public policy. Hence, when the alleged sufficient ground which was assigned in the application was not substantiated and was not found to be proved by the learned trial Court and further because no other ground has been taken in the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, I am of the view that merely by assigning reason (which is not even taken and averred in the application) that in the interest of justice or the O.I.C. was negligent application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code cannot be allowed by learned trial Court. Hence, the learned trial Court has acted illegally with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction by allowing application of defendant-respondent under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. 14. The Supreme Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu (Dead) by LRs vs. State of A. P. and others, 2011(3) MPLJ (S.C.) 135 = (2011) 4 SCC 363 has held that the Courts in this country, including the Supreme Court adopt a liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the concepts such as "liberal approach", "justice oriented approach", "substantial justice" cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the Court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. While considering application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. In this decision, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court in which the application for condonation of delay in bringing on record the LRs after considerable long period of 883 days was condoned. Yet there is another decision of Supreme Court State of Rajasthan vs. Nav Bharat Construction Co., (2005) 11 SCC 197 wherein it was held that the stand of the State praying to condone the delay was that there was a long strike of government employees but there was nothing on record in order to indicate when the strike was commenced and when it was called off. The Supreme Court found that since the application was quite vague therefore, the High Court did not commit any error in rejecting it. To me, in the present case, application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code is quite vague and the only reason which has been assigned is that Collector of the District was not served. The Court below as well as this Court has held that the said ground is concocted and is ex facie false. Thus, according to me, the learned trial Court has acted illegally with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction while allowing the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. 15. To decide an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code to set aside ex pane decree is a discretionary power and the judicial discretion should be exercised in favour of a party who comes with clean hands. 15. To decide an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code to set aside ex pane decree is a discretionary power and the judicial discretion should be exercised in favour of a party who comes with clean hands. Since under the false pretext on the ground that summon was not served upon the defendant application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code was filed and defendant-respondent tried to keep the Court in dark, therefore, I am of the view that in such a case the discretion cannot be exercised in favour of a party (defendant herein) who has not come with the clean hands. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. No costs. Revision allowed.