JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 18.3.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur in RFA No.04 of 2016. By the said order, learned District Judge rejected the application dated 14.3.2016 of the respondent-petitioner to dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of court fees. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case are that the petitioner as plaintiff instituted C.S. No.26 of 2008 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur for a decree of Rs.27,77,889/- impleading the opposite parties as defendants. The suit was decreed. Assailing the judgment and decree, the defendants filed RFA No.04 of 2016 before the learned District Judge. Since there was delay in filing the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. The respondents-opposite parties also filed an application seeking time to pay court fees. While the matter stood thus, the appellant-petitioner filed an application on 14.3.2016 to dismiss the appeal for non-payment of court fees. It is stated that an amount of Rs.99,584.25/- was payable towards court fees. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and without payment of court fees. There was inordinate delay in payment of court fees. Learned appellate court assigned the following reasons and condoned the delay; “…… The present case also involves realization of a huge sum of Rs.27,77,889/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization. The office of appellant No.4 situates in the district of Keonjhar and the office of appellant No.2 situates at Khurdha and the office of appellant No.3 which is the Superintending Engineer situates at Sambalpur. This is an appeal filed by the Government in which the offices of the authorities are situated at different places of the State. Nothing is shown to conclude that there was any intentional delay on behalf of the appellants to file the appeal or to deposit the deficit court fee. When such case involves realization of a huge sum of money of the Government which is public money amounting to more than Rs.27 lakhs, in my considered opinion, for the ends of justice the delay should be condoned u/s.5 Limitation Act and deficit court fee should be accepted u/s. 149 CPC.” 3. Mr. Kalyan Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was delay of 335 days in presenting the appeal. Mr. Kalyan Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was delay of 335 days in presenting the appeal. An amount of Rs.99,584.25/- was payable towards court fees. No proper application was filed seeking time to file court fees. Successive applications were filed seeking time to pay court fees. The reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay do not constitute sufficient cause. Learned appellate court has not considered the matter in its proper perspective and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Mr. P.C Panda, learned Addl. Government Advocate, submitted that an amount of Rs.99,584.25/- was payable towards court fees. After the judgment and decree, the G.P., Sambalpur applied certified copy of the judgment on 1.12.2014. He sent the judgment and decree on 6.1.2015 to defendant no.4 with his opinion. The same was received on 19.1.2015 where after the defendant no.4 forwarded the same to defendant no.2 on 5.2.2015. Defendant no.2 submitted the same to the Government on 16.2.2015. Since the Government wanted some relevant documents, on 4.3.2015 the G.P applied certified copy of the documents. On 19.3.2015, the same was supplied to the defendant no.4. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Law Department. On 16.6.2015, the Government took a decision to file appeal before this Court. On 8.7.2015 all the papers were submitted to the office of the Advocate General who furnished opinion that the appeal should be filed before the learned court below. The documents were returned to defendant no.4. After taking necessary instruction from the Government, the appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed. He further submitted that without proper sanction of the competent authority, the court fees could not be paid for which an application was filed seeking time to pay court fees. Though the provision of CPC has not been mentioned in the application, the same can be construed as an application under Section 149 CPC. The appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal on time. Learned appellate court is justified in condoning the delay. 5. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others (1987) 2 SCC 107 , the apex Court held as follows: “1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Learned appellate court is justified in condoning the delay. 5. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others (1987) 2 SCC 107 , the apex Court held as follows: “1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” 6. As held by the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others, AIR 1996 SC 1623 , the State is an impersonal machinery. When the State is an applicant praying for condonation of delay certain amount of latitude is permissible. If the case brought by the State is lost for such default, no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression “sufficient cause” should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detention of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay. The court should decide the matter on merit unless the case is hopelessly without merit. 7. An amount of Rs.99,584.25/- was payable towards court fees. Without prior sanction, the defendants-appellants could not have paid the court fees. Learned appellate court is justified in granting time to pay the court fees. The court should decide the matter on merit unless the case is hopelessly without merit. 7. An amount of Rs.99,584.25/- was payable towards court fees. Without prior sanction, the defendants-appellants could not have paid the court fees. Learned appellate court is justified in granting time to pay the court fees. An application seeking extension of time for payment of court fees has been filed. Further the appellants had filed an application under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The reasons assigned by the learned appellate court constitute sufficient cause. The learned appellate court has rightly condoned the delay. Though proper provision of CPC has not been mentioned but the same can be construed as an application under Section 149 CPC. 8. It is trite that mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of any provision of law would, by itself, be not sufficient to take away the jurisdiction of a court if it is otherwise vested in it in law. While exercising its power, the court will merely consider whether it has the source to exercise such power or not. (J.Kumardasan Nair Vrs. Iric Sohan and others (2009) 12 SCC 175 . 9. The order passed by the learned appellate court cannot be said perfunctory or flawed warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. But then, the learned appellate court is not justified in imposing cost. There was delay of 335 days in filing the appeal. In view of the same, the delay is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.3500/- (rupees three thousand five hundred) which shall be paid to the learned counsel for the respondent within a period of two months.