(1.) The respondents in C.M.P. No. 6613 of 1975 in Appeal S.R. No. 45304 of 1975 have preferred this letters patent appeal against the order dated 23rd September, 1975 passed by our learned brother, Raghuvir, J., condoning the delay of 464 days in filing the Appeal on condition that the petitioner in the said C.M.P. pays a sum of Rs. 400/- within four weeks from the date of that order to Smt. P. Venkayamma, Advocate for the respondents.
(2.) It is contended by Mr. P.A. Chowdary, the learned Advocate for the appellants in this letters patent appeal that the order of the learned judge ha; to be set aside for the reason that, inspite of the fact that there was an enormous delay of 464 days in preferring the appeal by the Government which has not been satisfactorily explained by the Government in its affidavit filed in support of C.M.P. No. 6613 of 75, the learned judge ought not to have allowed the petition on terms Mr. Choudary brought to our notice the affidavit filed in support of the C.M.P. and submits that from a perusal thereof, it would be evident that the Board of Revenue (Excise) slept over the matter from 22-1-1974 when the Assistant Government Pleader, Vijayawada, had informed the Board of Revenue that he has obtained a certified copy of the decree and judgment and wanted the authorities to file the appeal before 14-4-74 right upto 16-1-7 when the Assistant Government Pleader once again wrote to the Board of Revenue informing that the judgment was pronounced decreeing the suit for Rs. 6,376-49 p. on 19-11-1973. After receiving the letter of the Assistant Government Pleader the Board of Revenue woke up from its stupor and and started addressing letters to the Superintendent of Excise, Krishna and to the Collector and eventually the appeal was filed after a delay of 464 days. In these circumstances, Mr. Choudary submitted that the learned single judge ought not to have allowed the C.M.P. on terms. A perusal of tho letter written by the Assistant Government Pleader, Vijayawada on 22-1-1974 would show that the Assistant Government Pleader very promptly informed the Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue(Excise) that the judgment was pronounced on 19-11-1973 and that he has also applied for obtaining the copies of the said judgment and decree on 20-11-1973 i. e. the very next day after the judgmf nt was pronounced. During the pendency of this copy application, he has also filed another copy application on 11-12-73 for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree for purposes of reference. He has also advised that, taking the time lost into consideration, the appeal has to be filed before 14 4-1974 since the time for appeal is three months and the appeal lies to the High Court as the suit amount is 13,198-93p. Going through this letter, we are constrained 10 state that the Assistant Government Pleader was extremely prompt in informing the authorities to file the appeal before 14 4-1974; but, as usual, the Board of Revenue (Excise) slept over the matter and did not move in the matter of filing the appeal until they received the second letter from the Assistant Government Pleader dated 16-1-1975. It was then according to the affidavit filed by the Collector, that the Board of Revenue wrote a letter on 21-1-1975 asking the Excise Superintendent, Krishna, to inform whether any action has been taken on receipt of the above judgment for filing an appeal in the High Court. Once again, instead of moving promptly in the matter, the Board of Revenue, has indulged in correspondence with the authorities in order to find out as to how the delay was caused and at what stage. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, it is stated that the Board of Revenue in its letter dated 23-1-1975, directed the Excise Superintendent, Krishna, to inform whether the printing charges ot Rs. 75/- were sent for obtaining the printed copies of the judgment. The Board of Revenue finally directed the Excise Superintendent to send a detailed report in the matter along with the connected records through the concerned clerk before 29-1-1975. Once again, the Assistant Govern ment Pleader, in his letter dated 2-2-1975, reiterated the facts stated in his letter dated 16-1-1975 and informed the Board of Revenue that the entire record of the Subordinate Judge's court in the above suit was consigned to the District Court Finally, it is stated in the affidavit that the Board of Revenue, in its letter dated 15-3-1975 forworded the "grounds of C.R.P." in original, received from the Govcrnmenc Pleader (Excise) Hign Court to the Collector, Krishna for approval and for "filing C.R.P." in the High Court immediately. It is now known as to how the Board of Revenue concluded that a CRP. has to be filed against a decree, which was for a sum of Rs. 6,376-49p. in a suit filed for recovery of Rs. 13,1 8-93p. in spite of the fact that the Assistant Government Pleader had advised the Board of Revenue to prefer an appeal before 14-4-1974. Thus, to our mind the delay of 464 days has not at all been explained satisfactorily by the respondent herein.
(3.) In these circumstances, we are constrained te accede to the con tention advanced by Mr. P.A.Chowdary