JUDGMENT Garg, J. --1. The appellant/defendant has filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21st July, 2008 passed by I Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No.7A of 2008 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.1.2008 passed by II Civil Judge Class I Guna in Civil Suit No.39A of 2006 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed. 2. Heard I.A.No.547 of 2011, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. The appeal is drastically barred by 836 days. 4. The application has been opposed by the respondent. 5. I have gone through the application for condonation of delay. The facts as disclosed in the application by the appellant are as under : “That, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court. That, vide order dated 31.1.2008, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs filed against the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent preferred first appeal before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.7.2008 allowed the appeal of respondent/plaintiff. That, from the grounds taken in the appeal memo, it is crystal clear that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court is not in accordance with law. That, the application was submitted on 26.7.2010 for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order dated 21.7.2008 by the defendant before the lower appellate Court which was received on 30.7.2008. Thereafter, legal opinion was sought from the concerning government Advocate and after receiving legal opinion, the matter was forwarded to the State Government by Collector with regard to filing of appeal before this Hon. Court and the legal opinion was given on 21.7.2010. Thereafter, the Collector wrote a letter to the state Government for granting permission for filing second appeal before this Hon. Court. Thereafter, the Collector wrote a letter to the state Government for granting permission for filing second appeal before this Hon. Court. Ultimately, law department granted permission to file second appeal before this Hon. Court on 24.12.2010 and thereafter, OIC was appointed immediately on 14.1.2011 and he collected all the documents pertaining to this case and got the second appeal drafted on 31.1.2011 and submitted the same after completing all the formalities for being filed before this Hon. Court and ultimately, the same is being filed on 2.2.2011. It is submitted that the delay was caused in completing the procedural formalities and the delay was not intentional one. That, there is delay in filing present appeal. The appeal ought to have been filed within the period of 90 days from the date of passing impugned judgment and decree by learned lower appellate Court. But the same is being filed on 2.2.2011, therefore, there is delay in filing the instant appeal and for the reasons mentioned above, the same is based on the bonafide and therefore, deserves to be condoned. That, the Hon. apex Court in the case reported as AIR 1996 SC 1623 and 2750 has held that the delay in filing second appeal should be condoned when the state Govt. is a party because, the state Govt. is not an independent machinery and there are certain procedure and formalities of filing appeal and thus, the delay has been caused due to the procedural formalities. That, the appellants are not going to be benefited by filing the appeal late. The delay is based on bonafides which deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice”. 6. The manner in which, the appellants have dealt with the matter speaks volume and shows utter negligence on the part of the appellants to consider the issue of condonation. 7. The counsel for the appellants without telling as to what question of law is involved in this matter, has prayed that the delay of even 836 days could be condoned if the appeal raises question of law relying upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu By Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption v. N.Suresh Rajan and Others 2014 (1) Supreme 16 . 8. 8. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to the land bearing Survey No.977 Area 1 Bigha 17 Bisa situated on the Bajranggarh road Guna which was initially belonged to Zamindar Ramgopal and sold by him vide sale deed dated 25.2.1937 to one Nandkishore and his father. On a part of this land, there exists a Mandir, Dharmshala and a garden and rest of the part was continuously in their possession. Thereafter, in the year 1967, a part of the land ad measuring 90' width 110' was given to Raghuvir Singh at the rent of Rs.75/- per month, on which, the said company has obtained electric connection in the year 1976 and established a saw mill after obtaining necessary licence. After expiry of Hattilal, his sole son Nandkishore executed a sale deed on 1st January, 1996 in favour of plaintiff Harvinder Singh and gave possession of the said portion to him. It was on 22.8.2005 when State Govt. tried to demolish the shops constructed on the said plot, therefore, the suit was filed on the basis of the allegations made above which was opposed by learned appellant/defendant by filing the written statement. 9. The learned trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties and the documents brought on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding him to be encroacher. However, on appeal being filed by the plaintiff, learned first appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 10. Even if this argument is of any value, the factum of keeping the matter pending for more than two years and doing nothing to assail the judgment of the first appellate Court, shows that the appellants are utterly careless and in this case, no question of law is involved which requires any condonation of delay as pleaded. 11. The Hon'ble apex Court in Chief Post Master General and others v. Living Media India Ltd. and another reported in AIR 2012 SC 1506 has held that unless reasonable and acceptable explanation of delay and sufficient cause is shown, the application need not be accepted. 11. The Hon'ble apex Court in Chief Post Master General and others v. Living Media India Ltd. and another reported in AIR 2012 SC 1506 has held that unless reasonable and acceptable explanation of delay and sufficient cause is shown, the application need not be accepted. Relevant para is quoted below : - “(13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay”. Hence, I find no good reason to condone the delay in this case. 12. Therefore, I.A.No. 547 of 2011 for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the second appeal is also dismissed.