THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 2724 OF 2006 Date of Judgment: 18.7.2011 Between: State of Andhra Pradesh represented by District Collector, Guntur and others …Petitioners and Talluri Chandrasekhara Rao ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 2724 OF 2006 ORDER: This revision is by the State against the dismissal of their application seeking condonation of delay of 639 days in filing an appeal. The respondent herein filed OS No. 474 of 2000 before the I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurjala for declaration of title as well as recovery of possession and for consequential permanent injunction. The said suit, on contest, was decreed and according to the petitioners’ affidavit, they had received certified copies of decree and judgment, on 24.2.2003, but the said documents were misplaced in their office and could not file the appeal in time. It is alleged that the certified copies were traced out on 7.10.2004 and thereafter legal opinion was obtained and the present appeal was filed on 18.12.2004 along with an application for condonation of delay. The aforesaid application was seriously opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a detailed counter and it is stated in the counter that negligence of the officials cannot be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The lower appellate court agreed with the respondent and dismissed the application. Hence this revision. Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent. The decree in the suit was passed on 2.1.2003 and admittedly the petitioners received the certified copies on 24.2.2003. The appeal was, however, filed with the delay of almost 700 days and the explanation in support of the sufficient cause shown is that the certified copies were misplaced and they could not file the appeal. As stated by the learned counsel for the respondent, the misplacement of certified copies as alleged appears to be clearly attributable to the negligence of the officers in handling this matter. However, it has to be seen that the suit is for declaration of right of the respondent/plaintiff over immovable property and the petitioners/State had filed a written statement asserting that the suit schedule land is a Government land and neither the plaintiff nor his vendor had any title thereto. Whether the petitioners/State are able to sustain the said defence on merits is entirely a different matter at this stage and keeping in view the nature of the suit and the fact that the State is an inanimate litigant which has to depend on its officers for prosecuting the proceedings in the court, I am of the view that the delay of 639 days in presentation of the appeal should have been viewed by the lower appellate court in a liberal prospective, keeping in view the above aspects. The substantial cause on merits should not have been allowed to be defeated by negligence or perhaps collusive actions of the officers of the State. In the circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay, however, subject to condition of the petitioners/State shall deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the credit of the lower appellate Court within a period of four weeks from today and on such deposit, the respondent/plaintiff shall be entitled to withdraw the same. On compliance of the aforesaid condition, the lower appellate court shall number the appeal, hear and decide the same in accordance with law on merits, preferably within six months thereafter. In default of compliance of the aforesaid conditions, the impugned order shall stand sustained. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 18.7.2011 KR