JUDGMENT : Amol Rattan Singh, J. 1. By this petition, the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda (appellate Court as regards the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff), dated 29.07.2016, has been challenged by the State of Punjab, on the ground that the application filed on behalf of the State, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, has been erroneously dismissed by that Court, holding that the Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation, Bathinda (subsequently Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation, Division no.3, Bathinda), was not a competent authority to file either the application or the appeal on behalf of the State of Punjab. 2. Vide the order of this Court dated 13.07.2018, petitioner no.2 had been directed to be present in Court with the necessary documents/orders/notifications/circulars, as also the Punjab Law Manual, 1937, to show as to who is authorized to pursue/defend a civil suit on behalf of the Government and the Department of Water Supply and Sanitation. 3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner-State has filed in Court an affidavit of the Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation (GW), Division, Bathinda (now Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation, Division no.3, Bathinda), with the said officer also present in Court, wherein Order 27 Rule 1 CPC has been referred to, as also has the Law Department Manual, 1938, in Chapter 13 of which, below Rule 13.8, Note 4 reads as follows:- “Note-4. Under Order XXVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it has been ordered that in all suits by or against the Punjab Government, plaints or written statement on behalf of the Punjab Government, shall be signed and verified by the Deputy Commissioner for the time being of the District in which the cause of action in whole or in part arises or by any other gazetted officer of the department who is acquainted with the facts. (Punjab Government Notification No.1073-J-37/13017 date Ist April, 1937).” 4. Thus, as per the aforesaid note, any gazetted officer of the department who is acquainted with the facts, is authorized to pursue any civil case on behalf of the State of Punjab, and not just the Deputy Commissioner alone. 5. (Punjab Government Notification No.1073-J-37/13017 date Ist April, 1937).” 4. Thus, as per the aforesaid note, any gazetted officer of the department who is acquainted with the facts, is authorized to pursue any civil case on behalf of the State of Punjab, and not just the Deputy Commissioner alone. 5. Learned State counsel has also pointed to an order annexed as Annexure A-1/T with the affidavit, whereby the Governor of Punjab had granted sanction to file an appeal and a stay application against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bathinda, with an endorsement of the said order made to the Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation, Division no.3, Bathinda, directing him to file the appeal and stay application against the said order. 6. That being so, in my opinion the impugned order is unsustainable, with the Executive Engineer being fully authorized to pursue the appeal and any application connected with it, before the appropriate court. 7. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, with the learned appellate court to now consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal wholly on its own merits. 8. If that Court allows the application, the appeal itself thereafter will be considered and decided within a period of three months. 9. It is made clear that this Court is not commenting in any manner on as to whether the application deserves to be allowed or not.