1. The present Civil Revision Application u/s.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the applicants herein – original appellants – State of Gujarat and others to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15/10/2007 passed by learned Joint District Judge, Morbi in Regular Civil Application No.39 of 2007, by which, learned Appellant Court has refused to condone the delay of 503 days in preferring the appeal against the judgement and decree dated 31/01/2006 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Morbi in Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2002.
2. That respondents herein – original plaintiffs instituted Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2002 in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Morbi for getting compensation/damages of Rs.1,40,000/-, which was caused to the properties of the plaintiffs in the earthquake, which took place in the year 2001. By judgement and decree dated 31/01/2006, learned Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the applicants herein to pay Rs.1,40,000/-. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court, the appellants herein preferred appeal before learned Appellate Court after huge delay of 503 days. As there was a delay of 503 days in preferring the appeal, the applicants herein submitted the application requesting to condone the delay on making usual explanation that the delay has taken place due to internal correspondence and lapse at the administration level. That considering the material on record, learned Appellate Court did not accept the delay condonation application by observing that the applicants have failed to show any sufficient cause and consequently, the Appellate Court has dismissed the said delay condonation application by impugned order dated 15/10/2007.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 15/10/2007 passed by learned Appellate Court in not condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, the applicants herein – original appellants has filed the present Civil Revision Application u/s.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Mr.Mihir Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the applicants has vehemently submitted that learned Appellate Court has materially erred in dismissing the application to condone the delay of 503 days as such sufficient cause was shown by the applicants and even Department was seriously considering to prefer the appeal. However, due to awaiting approval from the concerned department and internal correspondence and approval from the Legal Department, which came to be received late, the appeal could not be filed within stipulated period of limitation. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Application.
4. The present Civil Revision Application is opposed by Mr.P.T.Jasani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent. It is submitted that as there is a gross negligence on the part of the applicants in not preferring the appeal within stipulated time. It is submitted that as such the averments in the application to condone the delay are too general and vague and the applicants have failed to make out any sufficient cause and, therefore, learned Appellate Court has rightly rejected delay condonation application. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by L.Rs. V/s. State of A.P. and others reported in AIR 2011 SC 1199 as well as in the case of Postmaster general and others V/s. Living Media India Limited and others reported in 2012(3) SCC 563, it is requested to dismiss the present Civil Revision Application.
5. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there is a huge delay of 503 days in preferring the appeal by the applicants. This Court has considered the averments in the application in support of prayer to condone the delay and it appears that averments are too general and vague and except stating that in view of internal correspondence, the appeal could not be filed within stipulated period of limitation. Nothing further has been mentioned. On identical ground, Hon'ble Supreme Court have specifically observed and held that the aforesaid cannot be considered to be sufficient ground and explanation, on which, delay can be condoned. In the case of Living Media India Limited and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to condone the delay in filing the SLP. In the said decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that law of limitation binds everybody equally including government and defence by Government of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology, cannot be accepted. Condonation of delay is exceptional and should not be used as anticipated benefit for the Government Department and offering usual explanation that file was kept pending due to procedural red tape. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (supra). Considering the aforesaid two decisions and averments in the application to condone the delay, it cannot be said that the learned Appellate Court has committed any error and/or illegality in dismissing the delay condonation application in preferring the appeal after huge delay of 503 days. At this stage, it is required to be noted that learned Trial Court has passed decree for compensation, which was caused to the properties of the plaintiffs in the earthquake, which took place in the year 2001 and pursuant to the order passed below Exh.5, Rs.56,000/- has already paid, which has been used for repairing the houses by the respondents.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no substance in the present Civil Revision Application and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with exemplary cost, which is quantified at Rs.1,000/-.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti