TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 1063
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant facts would be appropriate. 3. An order of eviction dated 17.12.1980 under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 was passed by the Estate Officer against the respondent (Now represented by his legal heirs). The respondent was unsuccessful in the challenge made against the said order in an appeal before the learned District Judge. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for review which was transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge who heard the matter and decided the same on 17.12.1993 as if he was hearing an appeal against the initial order of the Estate Officer dated 17.12.1980. The State of Rajasthan, therefore, moved Civil Writ Petition No.3503 of 1995 before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to offer any explanation for filing the appeal on 08.11.2006 after making a statement that the same was filed on 02.11.2006, the period of six days' is too insignificant to justify the view taken by the High Court. Learned counsel has also tried to take us to the merits of the appeal filed by the State to show that the order of the learned Single Judge under challenge in the appeal is ex-facie incorrect being contrary to several pronouncements of this Court. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order would justify interference so as to ensure that the Appeal filed by the State is heard on merits. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advance substantial justice instead of terminating a proceeding on a technical ground like limitation. Unless the explanation furnished for the delay is wholly unacceptable or if no explanation whatsoever is offered or if the delay is inordinate and third party rights had become embedded during the interregnum the Courts should lean in favour of condonation. Our observations in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 and Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal (2013) 4 SCC 52 do not strike any discordant note and have to be understood in the context of facts of the respective cases. Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (supra) "28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case where there are serious laches and negligence on the part of the State in challenging the decree passed in the suit and affirmed in appeal, the State cannot be allowed to wait to file objection under Section 47 till the decreeholder puts the decree in execution. ... Merely because the respondent is the State, delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot and shall not be mechanically considered and in the absence of "sufficient cause" delay shall not be condoned." 10. In the present case, the High Court seems to have accepted the explanation for the delay upto 02.11.2006. Thereafter, taking into account the statement made in the condonation application that the appeal has been filed on 02.11.2006, whereas it was actually filed on 08.....