(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State (defendant in suit) under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16-7-1990 of the learned single Judge in C.M.P.No. 8300 of 1990 in the C.M.A., refusing to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The C.M.A. itself arises out of an order in 1 A No. 272/87 dated 9-12-1987 refusing to set aside an ex purte decree dated 19-2-1987 passed against the State by the learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar in O.S.No. 4/85 in a sum of Rs. 1,60,001/-. The amount, was claimed towards compensation payable for the alleged taking over of wells, said to be existing within certain property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. So far as the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge in appeals under Order 43, Rule 1, C.P.C., there is no difficulty in view of the recent Full Bench judgment of this Court in Srinivas vs. J.N.T. University, explaining the decision of the Supt erne Court in Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaberi.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) Sri P.V. Narayaua Rao, however, raised a preliminary objection that no Letters Patent Appeal lies against an order refusing io condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On the other hand, it is contended by Mrs. Indra Ram, for the Government Pleader that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. It is further contended by her that the reasons for condonation fall within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court recently, in so far as appeals preferred by the State are concerned
(3.) On the basis of the above contentions, two points arise for consideration :