Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) This appeal is reported to be beyond time by 111 days. It was in time up to 21.5.2004.
(2.) The judgment was pronounced by the Claims Tribunal on 11.2.2004. Its certified copy was applied for on 25.2.2004. It was ready on 5.3.2004. Certified copy of the order was received on 12.3.2004. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Divisional Manager at the Regional Office, Gorakhpur on 23.3.2004. In para 4 of the affidavit it has been stated that thereafter the matter was referred to the Regional Office. The date of sending the file to the Regional Office has not been disclosed in the affidavit. However, from the averments made in para 4 of the affidavit it is not clear as to when legal cell of the appellant granted approval. Relevant dates are missing in para 4 of the affidavit. In para 5 it has been stated that the file was handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant on 25.8.2004. The appeal was barred by time by that time. In spite of that, the present appeal was filed before the Stamp Reporter for reporting on 9.9.2004.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for appellant, I do not find sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Certified copy of the judgment was obtained on 12.3.2004. There is absolutely no explanation why the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation after 12.3.2004. The delay in filing appeal was caused due to negligence and inaction of the officials of the appellant. The appellant has to suffer for .the act and negligence of its officers. Therefore, there is no explanation for the delay after 21.5.2004 (the limitation was up to that date) to 25.8.2004. Further, there is no explanation why the appeal was not presented immediately after 25.8.2004. From the averments made in para 5 of the affidavit it is clear that the file was handed over to learned counsel for appellant on 25.8.2004. There is absolutely no explanation for the time spent during the period 25.8.2004 to 9.9.2004. No case for condonation of delay has been made out.;