LAXMAN N DIVEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, Returnable forthwith. Mr. Kansara, Assistant Government Pleader waives service for respondent.

(2.) BY consent rule is taken up on Board for final hearing at this stage.

(3.) THE only question that falls for determination in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the Court below committed an error of jurisdiction in condoning the delay of more than 750 days? The suit filed by the petitioner Laxman N. Divekar (for short "the plaintiff") against the respondent herein, namely, the State of Maharashtra (for short "the defendant") for perpetual injunction and declaration in challenging the award was decreed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati on 2-3-1991. The said judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati, was challenged by the defendant in appeal filed on 18-12-1993 before the Additional District Judge, Baramati. The appeal was barred by more than 750 days and accordingly an application was filed by the defendant under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was stated in the application that the application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 2-3-1991 was made on 22-10-1993. The certified copies were received on 28-10-1993 and the appeal was filed on 18-12-1993. According to the averments made in the application the delay occurred because of the rush of the administrative work and other pre-occupations in the State Government. It was stated that if delay is condoned no loss would be caused to the plaintiff. The said application was contested by the plaintiff and the Additional District Judge by the impugned order dated 22-9-1997 allowed the same on the cost of Rs. 100/- and accordingly condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While doing so, the Additional District Judge relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court, namely (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and others v. Mst. Katiji and others) A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1353 and (G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer) 1988 Civil L. J. page 708. 3-A. The nub of the reasoning given by the Additional District Judge while condoning the delay reads thus :