K.L. Sharma, J. - (1.) This is a Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and order dated 21-4-1993 passes.; by the XIIth Additional District Judge Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 20/92, State of U.P.v Abhay Kumar and others, whereby the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure made by the State was rejected.
(2.) At the time of admission of this revision, Mr. P. N. Mathur, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. M. C Chaturvedi, learned Counsel appeared for and on behalf of the opposite parties. I have, therefore, heard not only the lea :d Standing Counsel Mr. V. P. Srivastava for the revisionists but also lean d Advocates for the opposite parties.
(3.) This revision has been filed after a delay of about 4 months 10 days The revisionists have filed an application under Section 5 of the Act for condonation of delay in the filing of this Civil Revision. explanation given for delay in the affidavit of Dr. Prabhakar Seth. Ad 1. Director of the Medical Education and Training Department of U. P. Government is that the matter was sent by the State Government to Law Department some time in July 1993 for necessary permission to file the Civil Revision, but the permission was granted on 26-11-1993. This explanation is not obviously convincing for the simple reason that the Law Department of the Government is a part and parcel of the State Secretariat. It is the duty of the Administrative Department of the Government to seek the advice of the Law Department with expedition. It is not probable at all that the Law Department has taken about four months' time to give advice whether a Civil Revision against the impugned judgment should be filed or not. The law of condonation of delay is that every day's delay must b satisfactorily explained. No attempt has been made in this affidavit u . in the delay of each day by giving reference to the specific dates and y performed by each and every official involved in the process of dealing with the file. It is also not explained as to why the certified copy impugned judgment passed by the learned Addl. District Judge could not be obtained within the shortest possible time and why it was awaited fir more than three months and the copy was obtained only on July 17, 1993. Therefore, the preliminary objection was raised by the learned Advocate for the opposite party is upheld. The revision is time barred and there is no sufficient and satisfactory ground of explanation for the delay of 4 months 10 days in the filing of this revision. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, rejected and the Civil Revision being time barred cannot be maintained.;