- (1.) AN application as per provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is preferred to condone delay of 802 days in filing the special appeal to question validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment dated 3.11.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCivil Writ Petition No.2980/1995, Roop Ram & Anr. v. Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner & Ors. By the judgment aforesaid learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and quashed the order dated 14.11.1983 passed by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Sriganganagar; order dated 4.4.1985 passed by the Collector-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sriganganagar; order dated 29.12.1986 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Sriganganagar; order dated 11.5.1990 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sriganganagar and the order dated 27.6.1995 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner.
(2.) THE applicants have tried to explain the delay in filing the appeal with submission that the order dated 3.11.2009 was passed in absence of the appellants and, therefore, they were having no knowledge upto the month of June, 2011 regarding the judgment aforesaid. On knowing about the judgment an application was preferred to avail copy of the same and that was supplied on 6.8.2011. The certified copy then was sent to the District Collector, Sriganganagar for further instructions in the matter. Necessary sanction then was granted for filing the appeal and the officer-in-charge thereafter contacted the Government Counsel at Jodhpur on 29.12.2011. As per the applicants immediately thereafter the appeal was filed. The details of such immediate filing is given in para 6 of the application, that reads as under:- "That the Government Counsel dictated the special appeal/stay petition as well as application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act on ___-12-2011 which was ready on ____-1-2012 and therefore, the same is being filed today i.e., on ....-1-2012 without any further delay in the matter." The quoted part of the application is sufficient to establish casualness on part of the applicants in filing the application. The blank spaces left in the application clearly indicate that the applicants were not taking necessary care of the litigation even at the time of filing the appeal by making an application to condone delay in filing the same.
(3.) BE that as it may, from perusal of the facts averred, it is apparent that the officer-in-charge made contact to the Government Counsel at Jodhpur on 29.12.2011, but even thereafter the appeal was filed only on 14.3.2012. No reason is given for causing delay in filing the appeal even after 29.12.2011. Suffice to notice here that no care was taken by the appellants to appear and contest the case before learned Single Judge despite service. In such circumstances, we do not find any just reason to condone the huge delay of 802 days in filing the special appeal.;