Inordinate delay coupled with material suppression of facts disentitles the State to condonation of delay.

The State of Madhya Pradesh (Appellants) challenged a judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court on January 27, 2017.

The Appellants filed the Second Appeal with a delay of 2331 days, seeking condonation via I.A. No. 14987 of 2023.

The State contended that the delay occurred because revenue proceedings regarding the implementation of the decree were pending until May 2022, and steps were only taken after the High Court disposed of a related writ petition in August 2023.

The Respondents provided evidence that the Law Department had granted permission to appeal as early as December 21, 2018, and the Government Pleader had sent reminders in 2020 and 2021—facts which the State suppressed in its application.

The Law of Limitation binds the Government equally to private litigants, as established in State of M.P. v. Bherulal (2020), which held that "procedural red tape" is an unacceptable explanation in the age of modern technology.

Under State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024), sufficient cause must be shown for the period within the limitation; subsequent events cannot cure an expired limitation period.

The court applied the "clean hands" doctrine from Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) and Arunima Baruah v. Union of India (2007), stipulating that the suppression of material facts leads to the forfeiture of discretionary and equitable remedies.

The court found that the Appellants failed to provide a day-to-day explanation for the inordinate delay of 2331 days.

It rejected the State's argument regarding pending revenue proceedings, noting that the State was fully aware of the judgment since 2017 and had even received internal legal clearance to appeal in 2018.

The court highlighted a "material suppression of facts," as the State omitted any mention of the 2018 Law Department permission and subsequent 2021 reminders in its application to the court.

Applying the Bherulal precedent, the court noted that the State cannot be given leverage or a separate limitation period due to its own negligence.

The court dismissed the State’s recent attempts to show disciplinary action against officers as an "afterthought" intended only to secure condonation.

Due to the suppression of material information and the "dirty hands" with which the State approached the court, the court imposed a cost of ₹50,000/- to be borne personally by the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) and not the public exchequer, with liberty granted to the State to recover losses from other responsible officers.