1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5366 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4338 OF 2001 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.3161 OF 1999 IN L.A.R. NO.109 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. Versus Vasant Yashwantrao Deshmukh & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.G.P. Mulekar, G.P. for the applicant. Mr.Hiranandani i/by Mr.C.G. Gavnekar for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 26th March, 2008 DATED : 26th March, 2008 DATED : 26th March, 2008 P.C. : 1. This application has been filed on behalf of the State Government to bring on record legal heirs and representatives of respondent No.5, who is stated to have died on 20-11-1998. The application under consideration was lodged in the registry on 8-10-2007. Thus, the application is barred by time of more than 8 years. In this application, it has been averred on behalf of the State while praying for condonation of this inordinate delay that when the case was listed before the Division Bench of 2 this Court on 10-9-2007, the appellants were granted last opportunity to take steps and from that date, they have taken steps and hence the delay should be condoned. In the application, there is not even a whisper much less any reasonable cause shown for condonation of delay from 1998 to September 2007. The application obviously implies as if the State of Maharashtra was not aware of the death of said deceased respondent No.5 for all this period. 2. This impression sought to be created by the affidavit is to say least factually incorrect and an attempt to avoid its responsibility for explaining the reasons for such inordinate delay. 3. At this stage, it may be appropriate to refer to certain facts giving rise to the present appeal. The reference Court vide its Judgment and Award dated 30-4-1998 had enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.95,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired land. This appeal was filed in the year 1999 and there was delay of 166 days in filing the appeal. Condonation thereof was prayed for in Civil Application no.4338 of 2001. When the notice was ordered to be issued on the said application, the respondents were not served and apparently, no effort was made by the State to find 3 out the status of the respondents and to serve them in accordance with law. In 2001, registry reported that the notices issued to the respondents were not received back and thereafter vide its report dated 5-12-2003, the registry made specific report that, "notice of respondent No.5 unserved with bailiff remark said respondent dead". This report was obviously within the knowledge of the State, as the report made by the registry is duly depicted on the cause lists as per the practise and from 2003 till 2007, no steps were taken. Different opportunities were granted by the Court vide its different orders passed in the year 2004 to 2007. However, the State Government, for the reasons best known to them, persisted with this attitude of callousness and no efforts were made to bring the legal heirs of respondent No.5 on record. 4. As noticed earlier, present application was filed on 8-10-2007. Vide order dated 30-7-2007, at the request of the learned counsel for State, the case was adjourned for six weeks to take steps, but again no attempt was made. The above narrated facts clearly show that the State Government was not interested in prosecuting its appeal property and all the orders of the Court including the report put up by the registry were ignored. 4 5. The Court cannot overlook a very important facet of litigation between the parties and that is when an appeal or a petition get barred by time, a right accrues in favour of other side. Such a right cannot be taken away in a routine manner. The Court would have to apply the law of limitation with all its rigor, particularly in the cases where the parties sleep over its rights, does not render any explanation for years of delay. 6. In the present case, as already noticed the situation is worst. The State for the reasons best known to itself, ignored the report of the registry, did not comply with the orders of the Court and put other party for repeated appearance before the Court, which is obviously as a result of default on the part of the State itself. It will be unfair to condone such a delay of 8 years without their being iota of explanation for the period in question. In these circumstances, we find no reasons much less sufficient cause to condone 8 years delay in bringing the legal heirs and representatives of respondent No.5 on record, who died in November, 1998. Consequently, the civil application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal would not survive. 5 7. Accordingly, both civil application Nos.5366 of 2007 and 4388 of 2001 are dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently, the appeal does not survive and the same is also dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR, J.