STATE OF ODISHA Vs. BANAMBAR SAMAL & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Talcher in RFA No. 2 of 2013 wherein the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Talcher in C.S. No.27 of 2003 were impugned by the present appellant. The suit has been filed by the respondent as the plaintiff for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land which measures Ac.0.095 dec. on the basis of his purchase from the predecessorin-interest of the defendant nos.2 to 28, who are said to have acquired title in respect of the said land by virtue of their long standing possession as its owner exercising all sorts of rights thereof for upward of the prescribed period. The suit land has been recorded in the name of the State under Anabadi khata with note of possession of the vendors of the plaintiff. The suit has been decreed against the appellant-State.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader did not contest the suit and no written statement was filed on behalf of the State. When such was the state of affair, it was not even made known to the State authority by the learned Government pleader as to when the suit was disposed of and what was its result. Only on 15.12.2012, when the original respondent, who having died, his legal representatives are now on record, produced the said judgment before the Tahasildar for correction of the record of right, the result of the suit was known that the judgment had been rendered against the State. Thereafter, further informations were collected and necessary steps were taken in finally obtaining the decision of the Government for filing the appeal and accordingly the appeal was filed. In the process there has been delay of 2072 days in filing the appeal. The appeal when was filed along with the petition for condonation of delay on the above grounds, the learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties has refused to condone the delay having not accepted the explanation given by the appellant for such long delay in filing the appeal and finding no such sufficient cause to have prevented the appellant from filing the appeal. Therefore, the State has assailed the said order of the lower appellate court by filing this second appeal.

(3.) The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: