JUDGMENT : Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, J. 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2024, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant review petition for modification in judgment dated 01.09.2012 & decree dated 14.09.2012. 2. The instant review petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sections 151 & 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for review of judgment dated 01.09.2012 and decree dated 14.09.2012 and modify the judgment and decree by rectifying the error apparent on the fact of record and making the compromise deed as a part of the decree which has been barred by 4169 days i.e. approximately 11 years 42 days. 3. The review petitioner has approached this Court seeking review of the order dated 01.09.2012 by which S.A. No. 181 of 2005 has been dismissed as withdrawn by the Lok Adalat and thereafter, decree be drawn vide order dated 14.09.2012. The relevant part of the order of the Lok Adalat is reproduced below:- “Learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.7, jointly submitted that parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and in that view of the matter, the appellants do not wish to press the appeal. In that view of the submission so made, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Let the decree be drawn. Court fee shall be refunded to the appellants upon production of proper certificate.” 4. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the review petitioner, submits that the delay in filing the instant review petition has not occurred intentionally, because, since passing of judgment dated 01.09.2012 the petitioner herein has preferred application before the revenue authority and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the other party of the compromise deed has fraudulently tried to eradicate the right of the petitioner and filed numerous frivolous applications before the revenue authority. He also submits that review petitioner was not indolent and the delay occurred in filing the instant review petition is bonafide and condonable. He further submits that petitioner is an old aged person and even after the compromise took place between the parties in Lok Adalat the petitioner has been harassed for more than a decade by the private respondents. He also submits that review petitioner was not indolent and the delay occurred in filing the instant review petition is bonafide and condonable. He further submits that petitioner is an old aged person and even after the compromise took place between the parties in Lok Adalat the petitioner has been harassed for more than a decade by the private respondents. He further submits that after the order passed by the Commissioner Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh on 27.08.2021, petitioner has preferred WPC No.3702 of 2023 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate petition. It is also stated that although the delay was occurred in filing the review petition, but, on perusal of the entire order sheets it is quite vivid that the petitioner was contesting his case on the basis of compromise decree, whereas, the clerical mistake on the part of the decree is deserved to be modified because in the Lok Adalat the parties have prayed for passing the decree on the basis of compromise deed and to consider the deed as part of the decree which was overlooked by the Lok Adalat, therefore, the delay occurred in filing the instant review petition is bonafide and is liable to be condoned and the judgment dated 01.09.2012 is liable to be reviewed as well as decree dated 14.09.2012 is liable to be modified. To buttress his submission he relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 . 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. A careful perusal of the records and the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay show that the impugned judgment was passed on 01.09.2012 and the decree was drawn on 14.09.2012 and after more than 11 years review petition has been filed by the petitioner, which shows the indolent and lethargic behaviour of the petitioner in taking remedy. 7. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in two recent judicial pronouncements have deprecated such practice on the part of State Authority in sitting over the matter and filing appeals after inordinate delay and coming-forth with the only excuse of matter having remained pending in the Office from one table to the other. 8. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 8. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 849, it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision, observed as below:- "3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 ).This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: "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. 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. 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." Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!" 9. In another decision, in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) V. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 233, also, in the factual context of long delay of 75 days, the explanation was found to be short of any sufficient cause. The explanation in the aforesaid case was noted in para 65 of the said judgment as below - "65. That apart, on the facts of this appeal, there is a long delay of 75 days beyond the period of 60 days provided by the Commercial Courts Act. Despite the fact that a certified copy of the District Court's judgment was obtained by the respondent on 27.04.2019, the appeal was filed only on 09.09.2019, the explanation for delay being: "2. That, the certified copy of the order dated 01/04/2013 was received by the appellant on 27/04/2019. Thereafter the matter was placed before the CGM purchase MPPKVVCL for the compliance of the order. The same was then sent to the law officer, MPPKVVCL for opinion. 3. That, the certified copy of the order dated 01/04/2013 was received by the appellant on 27/04/2019. Thereafter the matter was placed before the CGM purchase MPPKVVCL for the compliance of the order. The same was then sent to the law officer, MPPKVVCL for opinion. 3. That after taking opinion for appeal, and approval of the concerned authorities, the officer- in-charge was appointed vide order dated 23/07/2019. 4. That, thereafter due to bulky records of the case and for procurement of the necessary documents some delay has been caused however, the appeal has been prepared and filed to pursuant to the same and further delay. 5. That due to the aforesaid procedural approval and since the appellant is a public entity formed under the Energy department of the State Government, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and which deserve[s] to be condoned." 10. However, the Supreme Court was not satisfied with the cause shown on the above lines and it was held as below :- "66. This explanation falls woefully short of making out any sufficient cause. This appeal is therefore allowed and the condonation of delay is set aside on this score also." 11. Clause 124 attached to the Schedule of the Limitation Act 1963 (for short 'the Act of 1963') deals with the period of limitation for filing review petition. The limitation for filing review of a judgment by a Court other than Supreme Court, is 30 days. 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Popat Bahiru Goverdhana Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 (10) SCC 765 reported in 2013 (10) SCC 765 has held that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to the particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. 13. Section 5 of the Act of 1963 deals with the provision of Condonation of delay if the reasonable bonafide delay is explained. This provision of condonation of delay has not been enacted by the Legislature to destroy the rights of the other party. The winner is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the case decided in his favour. 13. Section 5 of the Act of 1963 deals with the provision of Condonation of delay if the reasonable bonafide delay is explained. This provision of condonation of delay has not been enacted by the Legislature to destroy the rights of the other party. The winner is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the case decided in his favour. He cannot be deprived to get the benefits of the judgment for indefinitely long period on the ground that the opposite side may assail the judgment before the same Court by way of filing a delayed review petition without giving satisfactory reasons of the delay. There should be an end to the litigation at the same point of time. A sleeping litigant cannot be allowed to awake after a long lapse of time. In the instant case, the review petitioner was sleeping for more than 11 years and realized that the order dated 01.09.2012 is required to be reviewed. No plausible explanation has been given for this delay of 11 years in filing this review petition. 14. In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012 (4) SCC 154 it is observed and held as under:- "The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the Court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the Legislature. At the same time, the Courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation." 15. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, 2008 (17) SCC 448 the Supreme Court has observed as under:- 16. In the case of Basawaraj Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 , it is observed and held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It is further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bonafides or there is inaction, then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions, then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature. 17. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is observed by this Court that the court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights". 18. Bearing in mind the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is quite vivid that the cause shown by the petitioner in the present application is not sufficient to condone the delay of 4169 days i.e. approximately 11 years 42 days in filing the instant review petition. No doubt, the Court adopts a liberal approach in consideration of an application for condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice and generally delay in preferring cases are required to be condoned in the interest of justice, but in the instant case petitioner has shown gross negligence and carelessness or deliberate in action or lack of bonafide mistakes beyond a limit in filing the application for condonation of delay i.e. more than 11 years, therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay in filing the instant review petition for review of judgment dated 01.09.2012 and decree dated 14.09.2012. 19. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2024, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant review petition, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed and also the instant review petition for review of judgment dated 01.09.2012 and decree dated 14.09.2012. 19. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2024, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant review petition, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed and also the instant review petition for review of judgment dated 01.09.2012 and decree dated 14.09.2012. is also dismissed as barred by limitation.