Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1462 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Mahila Ramkali

2014-11-12

M.C.GARG

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Arguments are heard on I.A. No.6497/2010, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellants. 2. This appeal which ought to have been filed in the year 2004 has been filed in the year 2010. 3. While in the application no sufficient cause was shown. The reasons given in the application seeking condonation in brief are: 4. After having come to know about the illegal possession of disputed land by the respondent No.1 and that she got judgment and decree in her favour from the first appellate Court, immediately, matter was looked into and certified copy of the said judgment and decree was applied for which was received some time in November, 2005. Thereafter it was mentioned that the relevant file of Court case of the said disputed land is not available, which was reconstituted by again applying for certified copies by the trial Court and the same after reconstitution was sent to SDO, Karera some time in 2009. Since copy of judgment and decree of trial Court was not sent, it was against applied for and delivered on 11.2.2010. Subsequent to which legal opinion was sought by the Government Advocate,Karera which was delivered on 22.2.2010. Thereafter proposal to file second appeal was moved by Divisional Forest Officer to Chief Conservator of Forest, Shivpuri on 24.2.2010. From there, proposal was sent to Department of Forest, who moved the case to Law and Legislative Department by U.O dated 18.3.2010. Approval was accorded for filing of the instant appeal by order dated 29.3.2010 and on appointment of OIC by order dated 31.3.2010, this second appeal was filed on 27.4.2010. 5. It is pertinent to note that judgment and decree was passed on 28.8.2004 and the second appeal was filed on 27.4.2010 i.e. after a delay of about 1978 days and no sufficient cause has been given. The delay of 1978 days occurred only in applying for certified copies of judgment and decree of Courts below and taking legal opinion. This shows utter negligence on the part of the appellant in dealing with the affairs of State. 6. The delay of 1978 days occurred only in applying for certified copies of judgment and decree of Courts below and taking legal opinion. This shows utter negligence on the part of the appellant in dealing with the affairs of State. 6. Appellant/State in para 7 of the application has relied on the decision reported in State of M.P. v. S. S. Akolkar 1996(2) Vidhi Bhaswar 1 = AIR 1996 SC 1984 and Special Tahsildar, land acquisition, Kerala v. K. V. Ayiseemma AIR 1996 SC 2750 , which is of no avail in view of the Hon'ble apex Court's decision rendered 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”. 7. The reasons given in the application did not inspire any confidence and therefore, I.A. No.6497/2010 for condonation of delay is dismissed. 8. Consequently, the second appeal is also dismissed.