STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. SAYANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Noticing certain seemingly conflicting observations in the Division Bench decisions of this Court as regards the yardstick to be applied and approach to be adopted while dealing with the petition filed by the State for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal, a learned Single Judge of this Court B. S. Raikote, J. has referred this C. M. P. to a Division Bench. The C. M. P. has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar for condonation of delay of 3,654 days in filing the second appeal against the judgment of the first appellate Court rendered on 5-2-1985. This case furnishes a typical example of not merely inaction of bureaucratic machinery, but also apathy and casualness towards Court litigation in which fairly valuable land is involved. The explanation for this inordinately long delay is sought to be given in an equally casual manner with vague averments, leaving many unexplained gaps. The long delay by itself may not be a ground to refuse the condonation of delay. But the reasons for the delay should be satisfactorily explained so as to make out a sufficient cause under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. That is utterly lacking in the present case. There may be apparently irreconcilable dicta in some of the cases of this Court to which the learned single Judge has referred. But, the petitioner-State cannot seek precedential support from any of the cases to justify the delay. Even adopting a liberal and realistic standard which is expected to be adopted by the Court, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner has made out a case for condonation of delay of about ten years in preferring the second appeal. We may incidentally mention that the second appeal is sought to be preferred with a petition to permit production of additional documentary evidence in the form of revenue records.

(2.) The area of conflict which was noticed by the learned single Judge is best explained in his own words which we quote:

(3.) Irrespective of the fact whether any contradictory proposition has been laid down in the latter case, as already observed, the facts of the instant case as brought out in the affidavit filed by the M.R.O. do not merit condonation of delay even after giving a wider latitude to the State on account of peculiar features permeating the State machinery. It is not merely a case of each day's delay remaining unexplained, but a case of long spells of delay of months and years going unexplained.