{1} Civil Application No.12011/2010 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12011 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.22092 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Balaji Kashinath Reddi (Patil) RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12013 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.22098 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Narayan Baburao Reddi (Patil) RESPONDENT ....... Mrs.V.A.Shinde, AGP for the applicant State Mr. M.S.Patil, Advocate for respondent ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 17 th November 2011 PER COURT: 1. By these applications, the applicant State has prayed {2} Civil Application No.12011/2010 for condonation of delay of 754 days in preferring first appeals. Perusal of the record shows that the papers were moved by the office of the Government Pleader in time, however there are lapses on the part of sanctioning authority due to which delay has been caused. 2. Recently, the Apex Court has taken a view, in “State of Karnataka versus Y.Moideen Kunhi” AIR 2009 SC 2577, that, “the expression ‘sufficient cause’ as appearing in Section 5 of The Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the ‘Limitation Act’) must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice as was noted by this court in G.Ramegowda, Major etc. V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Banglore (AIR 1988 SC 897), para no.8 of the judgment reads as follows. “The law of limitation is no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross- purposes with it.” {3} Civil Application No.12011/2010 It is also observed that- “certain cases are classic example where the circumstances are the same, where the excessive lands are involved out of which according to the State some were acquired by the State for the public purpose. The same cannot be rendered ineffective by skillful management of delay in the process of making challenge to the order which prima facie does not appear to be legally sustainable.” 3. In the light of the above observations and considering the fact that the public money is involved in these matters, the delay, albeit, enormous, needs to be condoned. Consequently, the applications are allowed and the delay is condoned. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/ca12011-10