1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3121 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 4607 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Ahmednagar and others. .. Applicants Versus M/s. Nirmal Builders, Through its Proprietor Mrs. Davangere Nirmala Kotraih, R/o. Agarkar Mala, Station Road, Ahmednagar. .. Respondent CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 15th JUNE, 2009. Mr. M.L. Dharashive, A.G.P. for the applicants. Mr. L.B. Pallod, Advocate, for the respondent. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Present Civil Application is preferred by original defendants for condonation of 86 days delay in preferring second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12-08-2008 passed by the District Judge-4 2 Ahmednagar in R.C.A. No. 127/2007 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 12-03-2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division Ahmednagar in R.C.S. No. 417/2003. 3. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the applicants state that they received Resolution from Law and Judiciary Department dated 29-11-2008. It remained on the part of Government Pleader to file present second appeal immediately for want of instructions from the concerned authorities. He further submitted that they called upon the concerned authority to provide them immediately instructions but it remained on their part. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the present Civil Application on the ground that the applicants failed to disclose sufficient cause to condone 86 days delay in preferring second appeal. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent state that though copy of Resolution dated 29-11-2008 received by the office of Government Pleader in the month of November 2008, present second appeal came to be filed on 26-02-2009. There is no explanation in the present Civil Application for period from 29-11-2008 to 26-02-2009. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent , in support of his submissions, relied on the judgment in the matter of Kamalbai Narasaiyya Shrimal and another 3 vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare, reported in 2007 (2) ALL MR 608. Head Note of the said judgment reads as under. "Civil P.C. (1908), s. 96 - Limitation Act (1963), S.5 - Condonation of delay - Delay in filing appeal against a decree for possession - Merely because there is no intentional delay cannot be a ground for condonation, because no one will intentionally cause delay." 5. Facts of the authority cited by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent are altogether different from the facts in the present case. Apex Court in the matter of Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala, vs. K.V. Ayisumma, reported in 1996 SC 2750 held as under. "Para.2. It is now settled law that when the delay was occasioned at the behest of the Government, it would be very difficult to explain the day to day delay. The transaction of the business of the Government being done leisurely by officers who had no or evince no personal interest at different levels. No one takes personal responsibility in processing the matters expeditiously. As a fact at several stages, they take their own time to reach a decision. Even in spite of pointing at the delay, they do not take expeditious action for ultimate decision in filing the appeal. This case is one of such instances. It is true that Section 4 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the Court and in matters of Limitation Act made no distinction between the State and the citizen. 4 Nonetheless adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice, it would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. The approach of the Court would be pragmatic but not pedandic. Under those circumstances, the Subordinate Judge had rightly adopted correct approach and had condoned the delay without insisting upon explaining every day's delay in filing the review application in the light of the law laid down by this Court. The High Court was not right in setting aside the order. Delay was rightly condoned." 6. Apex Court held that whenever appeals are filed on behalf of Government,they had to take decision on several levels. Therefore, considering averments in the present Civil Application, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) which reads as under. "(B) The delay of 86 days in filing present appeal may kindly be condoned." 7. The applicants to pay costs of Rs. 250/- (Rs. Two hundred fifty only) to the respondent within four weeks from today as a condition precedent. 8. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/JUN09/ca3121.09