1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12649 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST)No. 24302 OF 2009 1] The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Ahmednagar 2] The Executive Engineer, (PWD), Ahmednagar Division, Ahmednagar .. APPLICANTS VERSUS M/s. N.R. Penta and Sons, A firm registered under Indian Partnership Act, through its partner, Shashank Vasantrao Penta, Age 50 years, Mazrkendeya Society behind D.I.R. Office, Aurangabad road, Ahmednagar, Dist.hmednagar. ...RESPONDENT ... Mrs. R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the applicants Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 1st October, 2010. PER COURT : Heard Mrs. R.K. Ladda, learned A.G.P. for the applicants and Shri A.S. Bajaj, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2 2. The applicants have filed present application for condonation of delay of 2056 days in filing the Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the 3rd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, dated 17th November, 2003 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 193 of 2000. 3. The present respondent has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 252 of 1982 against the present applicants for recovery of Rs. 1,22,000/-. The Trial Court has partly decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 33,212/- with interest. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the non grant of the total claim preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 193 of 2000 before the District Court, Ahmednagar. The 3rd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, vide its Judgment and decree dated 17th November, 2003, allowed the appeal and decreed the claim of the plaintiff of Rs. 1,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The present applicants have filed Second Appeal against the said Judgment and Decree. As there is delay of 2056 days in filing 3 the appeal. The instant application is filed for condonation of delay. 4. I have heard Mrs. R.K. Ladda, learned A.G.P. for applicants and Shri A.S. Bajaj, learned Counsel for respondent at length. 5. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, learned A.G.P. contends that the delay has been caused because of administrative reasons. After the Judgment and Decree is passed by the lower Appellate Court on 17th November, 2003, the applicants applied for the certified copy on 18th November, 2003 and they received the certified coy on 10th December, 2003. After completing the formalities the matter was sent to the Law & Judiciary Department. The office of the Government Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad received the proposal for drafting and filing the Second Appeal on 12th March, 2004 along with certified copy of the decree. However, the said proposal was not accompanied with typed copies of the Judgment and Decree. Though the office of the Government Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad was 4 requesting the Department to send typed copies of Judgment and Decree, so also certified copy of Decree, the same was not send up to 2009 and it was received by the office of Government Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad on 10th September, 2009 only. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, learned A.G.P. submitted that the delay has been caused due to administrative reasons and Court should be liberal in condoning the delay. The learned A.G.P. relied on the following Judgments of the Apex Court : 1] “Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another V/s. Mst. Katiji and others, reported in AIR, 1987 SC 1353. 2] G. Ramegowda, Major & others V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, reported in AIR, 1988 SC 897. 3] State of Haryana V/s. Chandra Mani, reported in 1996 (3), SCC 132.” 6. The learned A.G.P. strenuously contended that the Government is an impersonal machinery and decisions are taken at slow pace 5 and certain amount of latitude need to be shown. According to her, the appellant has strong case on merits and every hope of success. This also needs to be taken into consideration. The learned A.G.P. further submits that office of Government Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad all the while was writing to the Department, but the Department could not send typed copies of the Judgment and Decree, so also the certified copy of the Decree. As such, the appeal could not be filed. The delay is not intentional one but only occurred due to the afore said reasons and requested to condone the delay. 7. Per contra, Shri A.S. Bajaj, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that, even if some latitude is to be shown, the applicant should come forward with some plausible reason. The contents of the application shows total negligence on the part of the Government. According to him, false grounds are stated by the applicant. He relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court, in a case of “Pundlik Jalram Patil (dead) by LRs. V/s. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon 6 Medium Project & another, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448” The learned Counsel further submitted that negligence cannot be given a premium by condoning the delay. The right is accrued to the respondent. He further submitted that even if delay is due to official hassles, it can hardly be justified for the condonation of delay. Though it is a discretionary relief, the same has to be exercised judiciously. The learned Counsel also relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of “ State of Maharashtra V/s. Vithu Kalya Govari & others, reported in 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239” and another Judgment of learned Single Judge, in a case of “Kamalbai Narsaiyya Shirmal & another V/s. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare, reported in 2007(1) Bom.C.R. 51”. 8. Considering the arguments of learned Counsel for the respective parties, and the various dictum of the Apex Court and this Court cited by them, it is clear that the application for condonation of delay has to be considered liberally. If the applicant comes forward with a plausible explanation and reasoning, the same has 7 to be liberally construed for condoning the delay and in case of State, the approach would be more liberal, considering the fact that the wheels of the Government move in a slow motion. The applicant nevertheless has to give some plausible reasoning. Perusal of the application of condonation of delay only depicts the gross negligence on the part of the department. The applicant itself has stated that the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree was received on 10th December, 2003 and the proposal was send by the Government for filing Second Appeal on 12th March, 2004, but as it was not accompanied by typed copy of Judgment and Decree and certified copy of decree, the appeal was not filed. Even as per the provisions of order 41 Rule 1, the certified copy of Decree is not necessary. Though the certified copies of Judgment and Decree were received by the Department in December, 2003, the appeal was filed, after a long slumber and that too only on 3rd November, 2009 causing delay of 2056 days. The contents of the application only points at the gross negligence. Even if the liberal approach is taken, there is no cause, 8 much less sufficient cause spelt out preventing the applicant to file the appeal within the prescribed period. Such a abnormal delay of 2056 days has not been explained at all. No satisfactory explanation has come forward. The explanation offered is fanciful and cannot be a ground to condone the delay. 9. In light of the above, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM*12649.09 CA