ORDER : I.A.No.1 of 2022 1. The Second Appeal is filed against the decree and judgment, dated 20.06.2019 in A.S.No.57 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District in which the decree and judgment, dated 01.08.2013 in O.S.No.189 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada is confirmed. 2. The I.A.No.1 of 2022 has been filed praying to condone the delay of 1141 days in filing the Second Appeal. 3. The appellants herein are the respondents and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.189 of 2011. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.189 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, seeking to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule property and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. 5. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement. The trial Court basing on the respective pleadings of both parties, after conducting trial, having heard both sides, decreed the suit by its decree and judgment, dated 01.08.2013 directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property within two months from the date of the judgment. 6. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada in O.S.No.189 of 2011 dated 01.08.2013, the defendant filed an Appeal under Order XLI Rule 1 & 2 and Section 96 of C.P.C praying the Court to set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2013 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada in O.S.No.189 of 2011. During pendency of A.S.No.57 of 2013, the defendant died and vide order in I.A.No.1995 of 2016 dated 11.04.2018 his legal representatives i.e. Appellant Nos.2 to 5 came on record. 7. The 1st Appellate Court having heard the submissions of both parties and proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree and judgment passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada in O.S.No.189 of 2011 dated 01.08.2013. 8. The unsuccessful appellants filed the present second appeal against the decree and judgment, dated 20.06.2019 in A.S.No.57 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gudivada. 8. The unsuccessful appellants filed the present second appeal against the decree and judgment, dated 20.06.2019 in A.S.No.57 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gudivada. While filing the second appeal, an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 1141 days in filing the second appeal. 9. As seen from the averments made in Paragraph Nos.3 to 7 of the affidavit filed along with an application to condone the delay of 1141 days in filing the Second Appeal are extracted hereunder : “3. The above named respondent filed OS No.189 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Prl Junior Civil Judge at Gudivada. For eviction which was decreed by decree and judgment dated 01.08.2013. The Trial Court granted two months time to evict the suit schedule property i.e. residential building. 4. The appellate court by decree and judgment dated 20.06.2019 in A.S.No.57 of 2013 filed by the confirmed decree and judgment of the trial court and no time was granted to evict the premises. 5. Since the judgment of the Appellate Court was not obtained in time and it is only on 16.05.2022 vide copy of the application 3027 of 2022 copy was ready on 30.05.2022. 6. Against the said decree and judgment by the above 2nd appeal was filed on 16.11.2022 and the same was returned on 17.11.2022. 7. It is respectfully submitted that even though the appeal was contested on merits, I could not get the information from the counsel on record and it is only when I received notices the executive petition. I came to know the result of appeal and immediately I have taken steps to file the appeal by filing copy application.” 10. On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, a counter-affidavit has been filed resisting the contention of the appellants herein/defendants to condone the delay. The relevant paragraphs in the counter-affidavit are extracted hereunder : “4. I came to know the result of appeal and immediately I have taken steps to file the appeal by filing copy application.” 10. On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, a counter-affidavit has been filed resisting the contention of the appellants herein/defendants to condone the delay. The relevant paragraphs in the counter-affidavit are extracted hereunder : “4. I submit that even after obtaining the certified copy of the decree and judgment in A.S.No.57 of 2013 on 16.05.2022, the petitioners did not prefer an appeal for the reasons best known to them and no proper explanation for the said delay was not even mentioned in the affidavit and the said fact clearly establishes that the petitioners have preferred the present only to drag on the execution proceedings in E.P.No.14 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada. 5. In reply to the averments made at Para 7 of the affidavit, the averment that the deponent of the writ affidavit could not get the information from the counsel on record and it was only when he received notices the execution petition, he came to know the result of the appeal and immediately he has taken steps to file the appeal by filing copy application are not true and correct and they are all created and concocted for the purpose of filing this affidavit. The reasons mentioned is not to be considered or condoning the delay of 1141 days. 6. I submit that, in fact, the counsel for appellants have filed Vakalat on 19.03.2020 in the EP proceedings and on the same day the Hon’ble Court was pleased to order for issuing Rule 35 notice to JDRs through Court and RP. Thus the petitioners/appellants are having knowledge about the Decree and Judgment in A.S.No.57 of 2013, as such the statement made is contrary to his actions. 7. I submit that even in the counter filed by the petitioners/appellants in E.P.No.14 of 2020 in O.S.No.189 of 2011, the petitioners/appellants have taken a plea that they have preferred 2nd appeal in S.A.No.325 of 2022 on the file of the Hon’bel High Court against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.57 of 2013 dated 20.06.2019 and in the said appeal, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to grant stay of execution of the Decree dated 01.08.2013 in O.S.No.189 of 2011. 8. 8. I submit that, in response to the counter affidavit, I have filed a Memo on 12.08.2022 mentioning that the above mentioned S.A.No.325 of 2022 is not filed against the Decree and Judgment in A.S.No.57 of 2013. Further the appellants have filed false Memos dated 11.10.2022, 21.10.2022 & 30.11.2022 and before the Lower Court in E.P.No.14 of 2020 stating that there is stay granted by this Hon’ble Court. Hence the illegal action of the appellants makes it clear that the petitioners/appellants did not come to this Hon’ble Court with clean and has suppressed the above facts and are dragging EP by filing false memos, as such they are liable for stringent action. 9. I submit that the petitioners/appellants have filed the present appeal with a delay of 1141 days and as seen from the entire affidavit, the appellants have not explained the reasons specifically as to what caused delay of 1141 days in preferring the 2nd appeal. Further the reasons have to be explained day-by-day, as the delay in filing appeal is 1141 days which is exorbitant and abnormal.” 11. Heard Sri Tungala Raghu Prasad, learned counsel for the Appellants herein/defendants and Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the respondent herein/plaintiff. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that, the 1st Appellate Court by Decree and Judgment dated 20.06.2019 in A.S.No.57 of 2013 confirmed the Decree and Judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.189 of 2011 and no time was granted to evict the premises. Though the appeal was contested on merits, the appellants could not get the information from the counsel on record and as and when they received notices in the execution petition and when they came to know the result of appeal, immediately they have taken steps to file the appeal by filing copy application, as such, the delay in filing the second appeal is neither willful nor wanton, but due to lack of information and legal knowledge of their right to appeal and prayed to condone the delay of 1141 days in filing the second appeal. 13. On the other hand, Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the respondents herein/plaintiff submits that the appellants have filed Copy Application after three years, which itself shows that they are not vigilant in prosecuting their case and exhibits the bonafidies of the appellants are not correct. 13. On the other hand, Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the respondents herein/plaintiff submits that the appellants have filed Copy Application after three years, which itself shows that they are not vigilant in prosecuting their case and exhibits the bonafidies of the appellants are not correct. He prayed to dismiss the interlocutory application as it is not maintainable either on facts or on Law. 14. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, the following facts are noted : i. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, passed decree and judgment, dated 01.08.2013 in O.S.No.189 of 2011, directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property within two months from the date of judgment; ii. The A.S.no.57 of 2013 filed by the appellants was dismissed by the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, vide decree and judgment; iii. Copy application No.3027 of 2022 was filed by the appellants herein on 16.05.2022 to obtain certified copies in A.S.No.57 of 2013; iv. Copy of the decree and judgment, dated 20.06.2019 in A.S.No.57 of 2013 was made ready and delivered on 30.05.2022; v. The Second Appeal was filed in the High Court on 22.12.2022. vi. Along with the second appeal, I.A.No.1 of 2022 was filed seeking condonation of delay of 1141 days in filing the second appeal. 15. Since learned counsel for the respondent herein/plaintiff seriously objected in filing the Second Appeal after inordinate and huge delay of 1141 days, this Court intends to examine whether there is any sufficient cause for the condonation of huge delay, in the light of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff stated the though the decree and judgment in A.S.No.57 of 2013 was passed on 20.06.2019 by the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Copy Application was filed by the appellants only on 16.05.2022 and the Copy was made ready on 30.05.2022, as such they caused three years of delay to file Copy Application. Further, the appellants preferred the second appeal on 22.12.2022 with delay of 1141 days and no proper explanation was mentioned for the said delay, as such, the said fact clearly establishes that the appellants have preferred the present appeal only to drag on the Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.14 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada. 17. 17. In the case of Office of Chief Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, 2012 Law Suit (SC) 124 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a petition filed for condonation of delay of 427 days after considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed as extracted hereunder : 12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 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. 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. 18. In another judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with an application to condone the delay of 663 days, came down heavily, while dismissing the said application in The State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Bherulal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 849 as extracted hereunder : 6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as “certificate cases”. The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation. 7. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation. 7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible. 8. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner-State of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, 1992 (3) SCC 563 wherein it is held as hereunder : “28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 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.” 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with an application to condone the delay of 916 days caused in preferring an appeal in case of University of Delhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and others, 2020 (1) ALT 230 held as hereunder : 20. From a consideration of the view taken by this Court through the decisions cited supra the position is clear that, by and large, a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party namely the Government or the public bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. In the case of Katiji (Supra) the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. However, what cannot also be lost sight is that the consideration therein was in the background of dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay in a case where there was delay of four days pitted against the consideration that was required to be made on merits regarding the upward revision of compensation amounting to 800 per cent. 21. As against the same, the delay in the instant facts in filing the LPA is 916 days and as such the consideration to condone can be made only if there is reasonable explanation and the condonation cannot be merely because the appellant is public body. 21. As against the same, the delay in the instant facts in filing the LPA is 916 days and as such the consideration to condone can be made only if there is reasonable explanation and the condonation cannot be merely because the appellant is public body. The entire explanation noticed above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law. 21. This Court in The Tahsildar, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District vs. Mangalagiri Pattana Padmasali Bahuthama Sangham, 2021 (1) ALD 57 , observed as extracted hereunder : “This Court also noticed the conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court by filing the Second Appeal even without calculating the correct delay occurred in filing the appeal. In the affidavit they mentioned there was a delay of 669 days. As the dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to the days of delay occurred in filing the second appeal, this Court before delivering this order, made calculation with regard to actual delay occurred through the Section Officer, Second Appeals Wing, and as per her calculation, there is a delay of 1016 days in filing the second appeal. It itself proves how the concerned officers in diligence in prosecuting the matter before this Court. As such, this Court opines that there was gross negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the officers concerned i.e., the present Tahsildar and his predecessor in filing this appeal with a huge and inordinate delay. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court the claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted and the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government.” 22. Whether the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the appellants herein for the delay caused in filing the Second Appeal would establish "sufficient cause" for the condonation of such a huge delay or not to be examined in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra. 23. As seen from the material available on record, it appears that though the 1st Appellate Court passed decree and judgment on 20.06.2019, the petitioner filed copy application to obtain the judgment copy only on 16.05.2022. 23. As seen from the material available on record, it appears that though the 1st Appellate Court passed decree and judgment on 20.06.2019, the petitioner filed copy application to obtain the judgment copy only on 16.05.2022. The reason stated in the affidavit filed by the appellants is that, they could not get the information from the counsel on record when the appeal was contested and upon receipt of the result of the appeal, immediately they have taken steps to file copy application. In the opinion of this Court, it is not a plausible and acceptable explanation. 24. Admittedly, decree and judgment was passed by the 1st Appellate Court on 20.06.2019 in A.S.No.57 of 2013 and the Copy Application was filed on 16.05.2022 i.e after three years. Thereafter, the Copy was made ready and delivered on 30.05.2022 i.e. within fifteen days period. Hence, no delay is caused on the part of the Appellate Court in preparing the copy and this Court is of the opinion that the appellants herein were not diligent in prosecuting the case. In fact, it is the duty and responsibility of the learned counsel, who attended for the appellants in Appellate Court has to file copy application in time as per the procedure contemplated under law to obtain judgment copy from the Court. It is his duty to obtain judgment copy from the Court and hand over the same to his client along with his opinion. But it appears that, till 16.05.2022 copy application was not filed. It is evident from the record that though copy of the decree and judgment was furnished on 30.05.2022, the Second Appeal was filed only on 22.12.2022 i.e., after more than seven months. It appears that there is no proper and acceptable explanation for not applying for certified copies of decree and judgment, dated 20.06.2019 within a reasonable time. 25. Admittedly, the date of decree and judgment in A.S.No.57 of 2013 is 20.06.2019 and the fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 16.05.2022. The other reasons mentioned in the affidavit which were already extracted as above, clearly proves that there was delay at every stage and there is no proper explanation as to why such huge delay had occurred. The other reasons mentioned in the affidavit which were already extracted as above, clearly proves that there was delay at every stage and there is no proper explanation as to why such huge delay had occurred. Though it was stated by the appellants that the delay was neither willful nor wanton, and due to lack of information and legal knowledge of their right to appeal, the fact remains that the appellants herein failed to take appropriate steps to file the appeal within the time by following due procedure as provided under law. 26. This Court also noticed the conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court in filing the appeal with inordinate and huge delay of 1141 days. This Court opines that there was gross negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the appellants herein in filing this second appeal with a huge and inordinate delay. 27. For the above mentioned reasons, this Court holds that there is no any “sufficient cause” for condonation of such a huge delay. Accordingly, the application filed for condonation of delay of 1141 days in filing the Second Appeal is to be dismissed. 28. Accordingly, the I.A.No.1 of 2022 is dismissed. S.A. No. 573 of 2022 29. In view of the dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2022, the Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. 30. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this second appeal shall stand closed.