KOCHHAR, J. - (1.) THE facts giving rise to this undated application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ("the Act"), filed by the petitioners applicants, for condonation of 96 days'delay in filing the revision petition against the order dated 28. 10. 1991, are as under : -
(2.) VIDE the order dated 28. 10. 1991, the learned Civil Judge, Jhalawar, had dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioners against the order dated 1. 06. 1991, passed by the learned Munsif, Jhalawar, in an application moved by the respondent under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in Civil Suit No. 4/90. The petitioners filed the revision petition against the order dated 28. 10. 1991, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhalawar, in Civil Appeal No. 74/90, with a delay of 96 days, as noted above. In para-2 of this application, it has been stated that the application for grant of certified copy, was submitted on (blanks not filled in ) and the copy was delivered to the Government Advocate, on (blanks not filled in ). It is also stated that the matter was processed and the Law Department, vide the letter dated 23. 04. 1992, directed the filing of the civil revision, and the matter was assigned to one of the learned Government Advocates, and thereafter, the officials of the department contacted the Government Advocate on 23rd April,1992, and on 21. 05. 1992, the learned Government Advocate drafted/dictated the revision petition and it was typed on 22nd May,1992 and was filed on 25. 05. 1992. It has been prayed that the delay in filing the revision petition, be condoned. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent, but the application has been opposed. Section 3 of the Act commands that if an application is not presented within the period of limitation, the Court should dismiss it, even if no objection regarding limitation is taken. Section 5 of the Act, of course, empowers the Court, to condone the delay in filing the application, but before such powers are exercised, the Court must be, satisfied that the applicant had been prevented by any sufficient cause from presenting the application within the period of limitation. The contents of the application under consideration, do not show as to why the matter could not be dealt with by the Law Department of the State of Rajasthan, within the reasonable time and why it took about five months in deciding as to whether the matter was to be challenged by filing a revision petition or not. No cause has thus been explained for this delay in the office of the Law Department. Even if it be assumed that there was some justification, (although, no good cause has been shown for detaining the file in the Law Department, for such a long period), no reason is coming forward as to why the revision petition could not be filed before 25. 05. 1992, after the instructions for its filing had been received on 23. 04. 1992. The way, this application has been filed, without even caring to fill in the blanks, as noted above, shows that applications are filed by the learned Government Advocates, thinking that the Courts would grant the same as a matter of course, because the applicant is the State Government. It appears that without giving the facts necessary for disclosing sufficient cause, the application has been moved, again under the impression that the Courts would allow it as a matter of course, because, the applicant is the State Government. It is unfortunate that the officials of the State Government and the Government Advocates do not think that all litigants are equal before the Courts; whether they are private parties or the Government departments, and that law has to be applied unifromly to all of them. It is high time that the impression is removed from the mind of the officials of the Government departments that their applications would be treated differently and would be allowed as a matter of course. It is also high time that some action is taken by the Government against its officials, in regard to the lapses being committed in the departments and for failing to deal with the matters in time, with the result that time-barred appeals, revisions and other matters are filed in Courts, without there being any sufficient cause, and cause of the State, i. e. , a public-cause, suffers.
(3.) THE facts, mentioned in this application, do not show any good cause; muchless a sufficient one, and on the contrary, show negligence and inaction on the part of the petitioners- applicants. The application, therefore,cannot be allowed and is dismissed, with the result that the revision petition being barred by time, is also dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary to Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, for infromation and necessary action in the matter. . ;