JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This is a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the order dated 8.2.2018 (Annexure-4) passed by the District Judge, Puri thereby allowing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act involving R.F.A. No.31 of 2016 entertaining an Appeal filed after almost one and half decade. 2. Short background involving the case is that parties involved herein entered into a suit for declaration of the gift deed executed by Chandra Sekhar Samantasinghar, defendant no.2 in favour of the Alarnath Dhanda Mulaka Mahavidyalaya, defendant no.1 on 4.1.1978 as void and illegal and also for declaration that the suit land is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendant no.2 with award of cost. The suit was registered as Title Suit No.159 of 1989. Brief fact further discloses that even in spite of sufficiency of notice, though the contesting defendant no.1, Secretary-cum-Principal of the College appeared through a Counsel but however, chose not to file written statement and thus the suit was set ex parte on 17.8.1992. Whereafter defendant no.1 filed a Misc. Case under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree, which was allowed by order dated 24.4.1997. It appears, even after the ex parte decree was recalled on allowing the Misc. Case under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., the contesting defendant did not prefer to file written statement in spite of repeated adjournments. The trial court finding total non-cooperation of the contesting defendant remained constraint to dispose of the Title Suit ultimately, vide judgment dated 1.7.2000 by allowing the suit. It is after about 15 years 7 months and 25 days, a regular First Appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Defendant no.3 being appellant filed the Appeal. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7, 10 & 11 filed objection to the petition for condonation of delay and contended that the appellant has not disclosed sufficient reason to condone the delay. Defendant no.3 being appellant filed the Appeal. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7, 10 & 11 filed objection to the petition for condonation of delay and contended that the appellant has not disclosed sufficient reason to condone the delay. The contesting respondents also pleaded that looking to the conduct of defendant no.1 even after the judgment and decree was set ex parte, not caring to file written statement to contest the suit and filing a regular Appeal after long 15 years 7 months and odd days, there is serious and deliberate neglect by defendant no.1 in conducting the case. Looking to the nature of dispute, it cannot be believed that defendant no.1 can remain so callous in taking up such an important issue and thus the respondents prayed the lower appellate court for dismissing the Section 5 application and thereby also dismissing the First Appeal on the ground of limitation to at least give rest to the judgment and decree passed therein about 15 years back. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was, however, allowed. Hence the Civil Revision Petition involving the impugned order of the lower appellate court in allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with such huge delay. 3. Sri D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners taking this Court to the objection against the Section 5 application and the pleadings taken note hereinabove contended that looking to the conduct of the parties at the first instance not caring in filing written statement in spite of sufficiency of notice and appearance therein, even after ex parte judgment and decree have been set aside, this defendant even did not choose to contest the matter by filing written statement compelling the trial court to conclude the suit proceeding and deciding only on the basis of plaint averment and evidence as available. Taking this Court to the grounds taken in the Section 5 application, Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners taking to the grounds and the factual background involved herein submitted that the O.P., i.e. defendant no.1, being an educational institution having the Principal as the Secretary, more particularly shifting the burden to the poor Clerk involving the Institution for not bringing to the notice of the Head of the Authority the development involving the suit remained improper and unacceptable. So far as the allegation of defendant no.1 is concerned, there was connivance between the staff of the College so also the plaintiffs claimed to be concocted and there is no evidence to show that the limitation petition was filed. Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that for the limitation petition filed with affidavit and the serious objection by the plaintiffs, the contesting O.P. therein, for the interest of justice, burden of proving through evidence to condone such delay ought to have been shifted to the defendant no.1, the petitioner therein. Taking this Court to the decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court in 2012(3) SCC 563 , Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners attempting to satisfy the contention raised therein by the petitioners submitted that the impugned decision also remained otherwise contrary to the legal position of the country. 4. Sri S.C. Samantray, learned counsel for the contesting O.P., on the other hand, taking this Court to the development involving the ex parte judgment and recalling the ex parte judgment and decree filing of Appeal along with the application for condonation of delay, the provision at Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section-17(b)(c)(d) read with Article 123 of the Act along with decisions involving Manoharan vs. Sivarajan & others involving Civil Appeal No.10581/2013, Collector (LA) vs. Katiji, (1987) AIR SC 1353, N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Mrishnamurthy, (1998) AIR SC 3222 and Ajit Kr. Bhuyan & others vs. Debajit Das & others, (2019) AIR SC 492, contended that for the settled position of law through above decisions, the observation and finding of the trial court remained correct and therefore, prayed for rejection of the Civil Revision Petition thereby confirming the impugned order. 5. Taking into account the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, admittedly the suit was filed in the year 1989 with contest of O.P.1. For non-cooperation and non-filing of the written statement, the trial court was constrained to close the suit by way of ex parte judgment and decree on 17.8.1992. However, consequent upon an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., the ex parte judgment and decree were set aside on 24.4.1997. For non-cooperation and non-filing of the written statement, the trial court was constrained to close the suit by way of ex parte judgment and decree on 17.8.1992. However, consequent upon an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., the ex parte judgment and decree were set aside on 24.4.1997. From the factual narrations and facts borne in the application involved herein, this Court finds, in spite of restoration of T.S. No.159/1989 on setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree involved therein, the defendant, i.e., present O.P.1 did not file written statement and did not also contest the suit, resultantly the matter again got closed with an ex parte judgment dated 1.7.2000. This Court here observes, O.P.1 is an Institution and not only that being an Educational Institution also represented through the Managing Committee of intellectuals and an educated Principal involved therein. Despite all resources, no concrete step was taken by the O.P.- Institution to see disposal of the suit on contest even in spite of recalling of the ex parte judgment and decree on allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. This Court further finds, even though the ex parte judgment involving the Title Suit was passed on 1.7.2000, it is strange to note that the Educational Institution involved herein did not take any interest in knowing the outcome of the Suit for more than fifteen years and ultimately after fifteen years and seven months filed the appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning such huge delay involving filing of the regular First Appeal. Going through the Section 5 application, this Court again finds, filing the Section 5 application, the O.P.1-Educational Institution has simply pleaded that there was connivance in between the Head-Clerk of the College and the plaintiffs. There has been use of influence by one Chakradhar Samantsinghar and his brother and sons and all of them have connived to see that the matter is kept away from the Management or the Principal of the College. Further a plea was also taken that the Principal since was not well-versed with litigation, he could not be in a position to take care of the limitation. All these pleas appeared to be taking place before the ex parte judgment was passed for the second time. Further a plea was also taken that the Principal since was not well-versed with litigation, he could not be in a position to take care of the limitation. All these pleas appeared to be taking place before the ex parte judgment was passed for the second time. So far as the delay in between the subsequent ex parte judgment and decree and filing of appeal, as stated, in the subsequent portion of paragraph-4 of the petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act at page-27 of the brief, O.P.-1-Institution has taken the plea that while on behalf of the College an attempt was made to construct a mini stadium over a plot by the side of the suit land on 10.2.2016, the present petitioners along with some anti-socials came in a body to the spot and threatened the present Principal-cum-Secretary and the staff of the College on the pretext of they are having an ex parte judgment and decree dated 1.7.2000 in their favour. On this plea, this Court observes, in the event there was any threatening by the plaintiffs and antisocial, nothing prevented the Principal or the staff of the College to at least lodge an F.I.R. to that effect. Further for its own saying that the attempt for construction since was undertaken over a different plot therein the suit plot there cannot be any occasion for anybody opposing the same. 6. Reading the averments made in paragraph-3 of the limitation petition, this Court finds, explanations whatsoever have been given in paragraph-3 are all previous to ex parte decree and the only explanation on delay in between the subsequent to ex parte decree and the filing of appeal is the only incident taking place on 10.2.2016, which is admittedly after fifteen years and some months. This Court going through the observations of the lower appellate court finds, the lower appellate court has misunderstood the explanation on delay in the limitation application made in paragraph-3 of the said petition, which incident had all taken place previous to the subsequent ex parte judgment and decree involving the suit involved herein. 7. This Court going through the observations of the lower appellate court finds, the lower appellate court has misunderstood the explanation on delay in the limitation application made in paragraph-3 of the said petition, which incident had all taken place previous to the subsequent ex parte judgment and decree involving the suit involved herein. 7. Further looking to the discussions on the decisions at the instance of the plaintiffs, vide 1985 (2) OLR 96 , 2012 (1) CLR SC 799, 2013 (1) CLR SC 957 & 2010 (2) OLR SC 212, this Court finds, even though all the decisions supported the case of the plaintiffs, the present petitioners, it appears, the lower appellate court has misapplied the decisions indicated herein above. Further looking to the decisions cited by the O.P.1, the appellant therein, 2014 SAR (Civil) 20, it appears, for the answer to point nos.1 & 2 being vital, the Hon'ble apex Court was pleased to answer the point no.2 in favour of the petitioners therein thereby condoning the delay of three years, which decision is absolutely not applicable to the case at hand that too a case instituted long after fifteen years. Thus there appears, there is wrong application of the said judgment to the case of O.P.1 even coming to the decisions cited by O.P.1 in AIR 1987 SC 1353 is concerned, this decision based on an observation of the Hon'ble apex Court that the State, which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grate status, which position not only has been changed in the meantime because of the decision in the case of Post Master General & others vs. Living Media India Ltd. & another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 , but for the status to O.P.1, this decision does not also not apply to the case at hand. Similarly, the decision, vide AIR 1998 SC 3222 is a case of condonation of delay of two years and six months, whereas the case at hand is a case with delay of fifteen years seven months and odd days. So far as the decision in AIR 2019 SC 492 is concerned, this is a case where the Hon'ble apex Court condoned the delay on the premises that the judgment and decree have been obtained therein by applying fraud, which again is not the case at hand. So far as the decision in AIR 2019 SC 492 is concerned, this is a case where the Hon'ble apex Court condoned the delay on the premises that the judgment and decree have been obtained therein by applying fraud, which again is not the case at hand. So far as the decision in 1995 (6) SCC 614 is concerned, this is a decision of the Hon'ble apex Court involving condonation of delay but institution of the litigation on being directed by the Hon'ble apex Court, which is also not the case at hand. For finding the decisions cited by the petitioners supporting the case of the petitioners and opposing the impugned judgment, further for there being no explanation at all for filing the appeal after the delay of fifteen years seven months and odd days and there being no explanation at all on the delay from the subsequent ex parte decree till filing of the appeal, this Court finds, there is no proper consideration of the limitation aspect by the lower appellate court. This Court further observes, for the judgment and decree obtained in the year 2000 and for passage of more than fifteen years of time, the position involving the suit for the judgment and decree has been settled and in the event such huge unexplained delay is entertained, this will be simply unsettling the settled position taking place one and half decade back. For the Post Master General case has an application to the case hand, this Court feels it appropriate to take note of paragraph-29 of the decision in Post Master General (supra), which is held as follows :- "29. 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 bona fide 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 the Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." 8. 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 the Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." 8. The petition for condonation of delay in Paragraph-2 clearly indicates in the year 1992, the Principal-cum-Secretary came to know about the ex parte decree and thus filed Misc. Case under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree, which application was allowed on 2.4.1997 and the case was further posted for further proceeding. Further, the order sheet at page-16 at Annexure-1 also makes it apparent that the contesting opposite party was provided with sufficient opportunity to file written statement in spite of last chance being provided on 3.10.1997 to file the written statement on 29.10.1997, defendant no.1, the contesting opposite party did not choose to file the written statement. Consequently, again an ex parte judgment was passed on 1.7.2000. From the limitation petition, it also reveals, the allegation of connivance of late Sarat Mohapatra, an employee of the College and defendant no.2 as raised in the appeal, remains contrary to the plea advanced for the reason that in paragraph-2 of the limitation petition clearly stated that the Advocate's Clerk was taking care of the case and again Sarat Mohapatra had already died in the year 2012. Facts involving consolidation proceeding and that the defendant no.1 remains unaware of the said development are all developments in the year 1994 and has nothing to do to condone the delay taking place after 2000 when the ex parte judgment and decree were passed. In the circumstance, this Court finds, the appellant, i.e., defendant no.1 failed to establish the factum of due diligence in explaining the delay of more than fifteen years and seven months. 9. In the circumstance, this Court interfering with the impugned order at Annexure-4 involving the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act involving R.F.A. No.31/2016 sets aside the same. As a consequence, R.F.A. No.31/2016 on the file of the learned District Judge, Puri must also fail. 10. The Civil Revision Petition succeeds. However, there is no order as to cost.